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: page not moved per discussion below. The guideline in question does not appear to enjoy clear consensus support, and lack of consensus to rewrite it is not proof of consensus for it. This and similar concurrent move requests make it clear that consensus is yet to be determined, and this conversation is one part of that determination. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 20:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Dee Doocey → Dee Doocey, Baroness Doocey —. She is a recently-ennobled life peer, and per both the guideline WP:NCPEER and the convention of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Life peers the article should be named by her title. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - The peerage is not her common name and this is not a Crystal Ball. If in the future the the peerage develops into her common name then that would be reasonable grounds for moving the article title. Until such a time it is speculation that it will become her common name. The current common name must be taken and not a name which could become her common name in the future.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 20:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply

  Comment Lucie-Marie's comment ignores the existence of WP:NCPEER, which is one of more than 60 topic-specific article-naming guidelines. All those guidelines have achieved consensus, and they exist to clarify the application of the general guidance at WP:TITLE. The subject guidelines serve an important purpose, by helping the development of stable and consistent names for articles. Lucie-Marie has made it clear that she does not like the existing guidelines, but unilaterally dismissing a guidelines out of hand dismisses the policy of WP:CONSENSUS by which they were formed. If she wants to seek a change in the guidelines, she should make a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply

  The naming convention is just that a convention and a guideline. There will always be exceptions to guidelines. The common name policy is a policy and policies have precedence over guidelines. Also is a convention has been established for 60seerate topics what's the point of the common name policy if it is just going to be ignored. The common name policy explicitly states the following

  Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic. Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name,...

• IF the peerage title becomes the common name then that is grounds for changing the title but to so blatantly ignores Wikipedia policy is ludicrous.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 21:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply

  What you are saying is, in effect, that only WP:NAME matters and the 60 guidelines can be ignored because they are only guidelines. You should therefore nominate all the Wikipedia guidelines for deletion, because clearly they are pointless when all we need is Lucie-Marie's interpretation of policy. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs)

Comment - What I am saying is that the common name policy is being ignored and only the Naming convention guidelines are being taken into account. I am simply trying to have both taken into account and not one or the other. In this case I believe the common name policy is the more relevant. Please can you also refrain from being disparaging in your comments.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 22:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply

The guideline was drawn up to apply WP:NAME to this type of article, and its content represent the long-standing consensus on how to do so. Your arguments here do not advocate an exception to the guideline, they advocate ignoring it. Since you don't like the guideline, go ahead and propose a change to it ... but unless and until that proposal succeeds, the guideline stands and is applicable here. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• Support per WP:NCPEER. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment' - Would you mind elaborating please, as to how the naming convention is relevant to this issue and what points of the naming convention are the grounds for your argument.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 21:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment. "Members of the British Peerage, whether hereditary peers or life peers, usually have their articles titled "Personal name, Ordinal (if appropriate) Peerage title", e.g. Alun Gwynne Jones, Baron Chalfont" Kittybrewster ☎ 21:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• Oppose, no sign yet (e.g. at her website) that she intends to change the way she's referred to, and certainly not to the title proposed here. If this contradicts NCPEER (which it doesn't necessarily, as it provides for exceptions), then so much the worse for NCPEER.-- Kotniski ( talk) 12:44, 5 January 2011 (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.