This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wagatha Christie article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
Yes, it should probably be retitled "Vardy v Rooney libel trial" or whatever the Wikipedia standard is for naming such things. W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided to be bold and make the change. This title appears to be consistent with other articles in the category "English defamation case law". I think there may be a Wikipedia convention which says that we are not oblige to use the most common name if a more encyclopedic alternative easily exists. PatGallacher (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. WP:COMMONAME is a fairly set in stone policy for naming articles, and in this case is fairly clear cut. Even the BBC calls it Wagatha Christie. And Vardy v Rooney isn't technically precise as the article covers the whole saga, not just the trial. I have moved the article back to the previous title. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't clear to me exactly what is called Wagatha Christie. It normally seems to be the Wagatha Christie case or the Wagatha Christie trial or some such. Wagatha Christie on its own looks like just a dangling phrase, not actually the name of anything. W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wagatha Christie → Vardy v Rooney – The present title is in an unencyclopedic style. There may be a Wikipedia guideline that we do not always have to use the common name if a more encyclopedic title exists, e.g. Octomum. The proposed new title is also consistent with other articles in the category "English defamation case law". PatGallacher (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a Wikipedia guideline that we do not always have to use the common name if a more encyclopedic title exists
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. In nearly all cases, it is referred to in reliable sources by its current title, as demonstrated by those used in the article. Nine of the twelve non-Twitter cites from six different media outlets have 'Wagatha Christie' in the title, with only one having 'Vardy v Rooney'. While the Person A v Person B vs format is the most common format at Category:English defamation case law, it is not universal. Secerleonty (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support some change of title, since as I wrote above, I don't believe "Wagatha Christie" on its own is the common name of anything. It should at least be followed by some noun such as "case". W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:POVNAME, which says that we avoid the common name when it is a colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious, with an example of Octomom being given. BilledMammal (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that analysis is mistaken. As I read WP:POVNAME, that policy applies only where the common name lacks neutrality. Here, however, the term 'Wagatha Christie', while informal, appears perfectly neutral to me. It makes no suggestion as to who was actually right in the underlying libel dispute. It merely reflects two objective facts: Rooney's personal detective work and the fact that both individuals were WAGs. Thus, I think this is clearly WP:COMMONNAME, and I Oppose the suggestion.Telanian7790 (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline says we should avoid "Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious", and gives "Octomum" as an example. It escapes me that there is anything POV about "Octomum", so that is not essential for titles like this to be avoided. PatGallacher (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have misread the policy by focussing on an isolated part out of context. I quote the relevant part with added emphasis:
An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past, it must be the common name in current use.
Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:
1. Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later
2. Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious''
In my view, the emphasied parts make it crystal clear that the part you rely on - Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious - applies only where the common name is not neutral. Here, for the reasons stated above, the common name is neutral. Further, I know nothing about "octomum" so I cannot comment on whether the policy has been correctly applied with respect to that page.Telanian7790 (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure which part of WP:OFFICIALNAME you're citing here but, to be clear, that page does not say to use the official name of an entity. Indeed it cautions against that: "In many cases, this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy". The important thing is what sources commonly call the concept, not its official name. — Amakuru (talk) 09:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:OFFICIALNAME, and the fact that the article is almost exclusively about the legal trial and has very little on the pre-trial "Wagatha Christie" events. Still leave the term bolded in the lede, as it is a search term per WP:COMMONNAME, but rename to the legal case. 78.19.229.252 (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it reminds me of the McLibel case which is given this name even in legal academic commentary to this day. Perhaps we should have more reverence and use the technical legal name, but RSs give it this name as they did for the McLibel case and it is futile (at this stage) to suggest anything else. Solipsism 101 (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, and also WP:PRECISE, since this isn't just about the trial and it isn't just about the initial saga either, it's about the whole deal, which the media are almost universally dubbing "Wagatha Christie". Contrary to assertions above, that term is freely used as a standalone noun by sources, and there is no requirement that it be followed by "case", "trial" or anything else.[1][2] There is also plenty of precedence for using "tabloid nicknames" if and when they become widely used monikers, including even in the "high-brow" press. See Megxit, Brexit, partygate etc. — Amakuru (talk) 09:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose posting that "There may be a Wikipedia guideline that we do not always have to use the common name if a more encyclopedic title exists" is conjecture and assumes "encyclopedic" titles to be preferable. Add a reference to "Vardy V Rooney" as an alternate title if you wish but leave the article labelled with the title most used. Spielberg (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
