Talk:Maurice Glasman, Baron Glasman

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Maurice Glasman, Baron Glasman since the peerage appears to be the primary driver of notability. --rgpk (comment) 17:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Better known in his academic field and as an academic in general not known for being a peer or by the peerage title. Also no disambiguation is required for this title.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support.

WP:NCPEER is quite clear. This chap is no longer wholly or exclusively known by his pre-peerage nomenclature. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename to
  WP:NCPEER. No evidence that he was widely known as an academic; the article was created only after his peerage was announced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose in the strongest possible terms for consistency in naming per policy and guidelines like
  WP:NCPEER. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  As usual, B2C ignores the fact the policy

  WP:NCPEER. B2C's "per policy and guidelines" oppose actually contravenes both policy and guideline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Indeed, as I said at another article where he or she raised this point, IAR is about ignoring rules, policies, and guidelines in exceptional circumstances. It certainly does not endorse simply ignoring a naming convention simply because you don't like it. He or she also once again lists guidelines that are part of WP:Article titles, but ignores the bit of that policy that refers to explicit naming conventions, which explicitly states that such conventions are exceptions to the general rule of using the common name. It's a bit odd to complain that an exception to a rule doesn't comport with the general rule. Of course it doesn't; that's what an exception is. -Rrius (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Academics who have been ennobled are almost invariably known by their titles thereafter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is

not a Crystal Ball and what they are currently known is what we have to take as the current commonly used name. If in the future the individual is known regularly by their ennobled title then that would be grounds to change the article title. To though say, it is expected that the names they are known by will change is not how things work on Wikipeida.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Response - No Crystal Ball necessary: he's been made a peer and there are plenty of press mentions already with his title: [1] [2] [3].--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support move to Maurice Glasman, Baron Glasman (his actual title) His notability comes from his peerage, therefore he does not qualify for the exception. Very strong notability by a name without the peerage is the sine qua non of the exception, and that is not present here. -Rrius (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, no need to use a longer title when a short one will do - if he becomes well known under his peerage title, we can think again, but as yet there's no evidence that he will, so stick with the common name he's well known by. (But as observed by Rrius, the proposed target should just be "Maurice Glasman, Baron Glasman", not the longer form given in the nomination - unless there are errors in Wikipedia's articles.) --Kotniski (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support move. Clearly in line with all policies and guidelines to move this one, per Rrius.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maurice Glasman, Baron Glasman as per Rrius. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed, per Rrius and Kittybrewster.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.