Jump to content

Talk:Ann Taylor, Baroness Taylor of Bolton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

There is an Ann Taylor upscale retail chain in the United States. Mike H 10:47, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

On that point, would someone who knows how please fix the link at the top? TysK 18:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Babes

[edit]

Was she a "Blair babe"? Insofar as that's a relevant term I thought it was used to apply to the significant chunk of female MPs who won seats for the first time in 1997, not people who served in the Callaghan government. --Jdc 10:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move Request

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: no move Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Taylor, Baroness Taylor of Bolton → Ann Taylor (British Politician) — Not commonly known as Baroness Taylor of Bolton. The name is a confusing addition and not necessary and this needs to be undone by an administrater.--09:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Updated Now updated to a more appropriate title due to the disambiguation required which has now been bought to my attention.--15:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

So, the argument is now that this is a more appropriate disambiguation? The original claim that the name... is not necessary is evidently false, so what's the new reason for the move? Does it in any way reflect the policy? Andrewa (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the move is simple the words "Baroness Taylor of Bolton" are simply unnecessary as she is not commonly referred by that title and when looking for her most people will just put in Ann Taylor and not Baroness Taylor of Bolton. For ease of searching and reduction in confusion the most common name is chosen and in this case it is Ann Taylor. As there is more than one Ann Taylor an appropriate disambiguation is needed which best describes the subject and in this case it is the fact Ann Taylor is a British politician and not the mere fact she is a working peer.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it's based on your likes and dislikes, rather than on any Wikipedia guideline or policy? Andrewa (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WIki policy says the most common and least confusing name should be used when determining the title of an article. This is not based on WP:like. The current title is far too flowery and unnecessarily confusing. Her name is Ann Taylor and it has been used to refer to her for years and years when she has been an MP. Just because she has been made a life peer doesn’t change how people commonly refer to her. She will still be commonly referred to as Ann Taylor. This means the title is confusing for the average user.--Lucy-marie (talk) 09:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even granting, which I don't, that she is better known without the title, the title is still the best disambiguator. The parenthetical is only supposed to be used if there is no non-parenthetical disambiguator that works. That is the reason the former Speaker is at Michael Martin, Baron Martin of Springburn, and so should it be here. The name "Ann Taylor" is not only already there, but is at the beginning of the title; there is no confusion at all in tacking the title on the end. -Rrius (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is she Ann Taylor or Baroness Taylor of Bolton. The title currently uses both which is unnecessarily confusing. She is known for being more than a life peer. The title must reflect that she is better known for being a politician in general and specifically a member of parliament, not just a life peer, which is a later addition. The fact she was an MP is the notable part. Michael Martin also should not be Michael Martin, Baron Martin of Springburn he should not have the extra part of the life peerage title in his name as he is best known for being the house of commons speaker and not a life peer. The confusion is created by tacking on the title as she is not well known for that title. For example Lord Ashcroft would be acceptable because he is known as a life peer and conservative party chairman and the media refer to him commonly as Lord Ashcroft. The media do not refer to Michael Martin as Baron Martin of Springburn or Ann Taylor as Baroness Taylor of Bolton the title in the article name is just a confusing, semantic addition which is not in common use.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need to go read WP:NCROY. Many of us don't particularly like the way the naming convention handles titles, but it is what it is. The fact that she is often known as "Lady Taylor" or "Baroness Taylor" or "Lady Taylor of Bolton" is enough, in itself, to justify the "Baroness Taylor of Bolton" at the end of the article title. I realise you don't like it, but I'm afraid you'll just have to deal with it. No title conveys everything about a person with a decent length title, and it is not the point of any of the naming conventions to do so. Ann Taylor, Baroness Taylor of Bolton is simply the correct article title for this woman. -Rrius (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A wider discussion is being started at here. Also I disagree it is "right" it violates WP:COMMONNAME, by not being the most common name the person is referred to as.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Disambiguation is required, and disambiguating by peerage title is the best option - we should only use parentheticals when there's no other clear way to disambiguate that isn't arbitrary and confusing. In the case of peers, there is almost always a fair amount of material referring to them by their peerage title, so even if they're most famous for what they did before becoming a peer, it still usually makes more sense to disambiguate by peerage title than otherwise. john k (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Per this discussion. NickCT (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument there (by the way, you're welcome) was that COMMONNAME trumps NCROY. Actually, though, you are wrong. Read WP:Article titles. Established naming explicit naming conventions trump the general call to use the common name. If that weren't the case, the bloody naming conventions wouldn't even exit. -Rrius (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a full name it is a formal title which nobody outside of highly formalised settings uses and the majority of people do not know exists.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The former is untrue, and the latter is a completely worthless argument. She is known as "Lady Taylor", "Baroness Taylor", and various other versions of her title in the media. The second argument is worthless because the majority of people don't even know she exists. When you whittle the world's population down to the universe of people who know who she is, far more than a majority know she is a baroness. -Rrius (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She is clearly notable enough to have a page on here so enough recognition of her existence is available. Also could you please back up the statement "nobody knows she exists". The statement is clearly unfounded because if nobody knew she existed she would not warrant a Wikipedia page. The people who know who she is will be more than is thought her former constituents for example will not know her as a baroness the will simply know her by her personal name. The use of the prefix is not under discussion it the use of the whole formal title which is what is under discussion. Very few outside of a formal setting will ever use the full formal title so having it in the article title is in violation of WP:COMMONNAME and is wholly unnecessary.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I think the present title is the best option of those available. Deb (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seems to be little research being done into what is used. I tried a Google search on "Lady Taylor" but there have been other Lady Talylors, so I did a search on ["Anne-Taylor" MOD site:UK] and it returns 2,810 ghits, but on the first page of which about half were "Baroness Ann Taylor". To my surprise ["Baroness-Ann-Taylor", MOD site:UK] returns 6,240 results (shows how accurate ghits are). The point is that to decide what is the common name a lot more research (more refined Google searches) need to be done. For example in the last five years what has the BBC and the major newspapers in the UK called her, to decide if the common name and the formula name derived from WP:NCROY differ enough to justify moving the page to a common name that differs from the WP:NCROY derived name. -- PBS (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Section Headings?

[edit]

Her voting record is detailed under the heading "Personal Life" - is that right?? 217.113.170.97 (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ann Taylor, Baroness Taylor of Bolton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ann Taylor, Baroness Taylor of Bolton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ann_Taylor,_Baroness_Taylor_of_Bolton&oldid=1208101859"