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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Close as disruptive; set RM moratorium of three months. This request is the fourth in three months and the third in a row with substantially the same proposed alternative. Whilst consensus can change, new discussions at such a rate are unhelpful. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheryl Cole → Cheryl (singer) – This is getting stupid now, under WP:COMMONNAME this article should be called Cheryl (singer). Her legal name is not Cole. The main reason people still call her cole is the article's name. Every media outlet calls her Fernandez-Versini now. The current article name will cause confusion. 94.7.162.173 (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC) — 94.7.162.173 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Support. I don't know if it's not too soon after the previous discussion for this, but she does seem to be known more as Cheryl than Cole these days. This is Paul (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support WP:COMMONNAME says, "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change" (emphasis mine). Published sources who now use "Cheryl Cole" are in a tiny minority. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• Question newspapers are calling her "formerly Carol Cole"...should en.wp treat her as Cat Stevens...or as who? What's the alternative example to Yusuf Islam? Am reversing previous opinion and thinking now Weak Support, as previous support for moving Cat Stevens to Yusuf Islam. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheryl [Tweedy] was married to England footballer Ashley Cole from July 2006[12] until September 2010, when she divorced him following the announcement of their separation earlier that year

• Support per my above comment here - I also commend the nom for doing this a month later and not a few days later (I was expecting this to appear the next day but surprised it wasn't). –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:NCP discourages discarding her well-known surname: if the surname is "fairly often used", do not use only the first name along with parenthetical disambiguation. Look at Bing News results, but you can't go pass 14th page, limiting to only 136. Hmm... her name Cheryl Fernandez-Versini is also commonly used in articles. I oppose the parenthetical disambiguation and find "Cheryl Cole" not obscure or inaccurate per WP:NATURAL. --George Ho (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@This is Paul, In ictu oculi, Davey2010: Your response? --George Ho (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

My response is that I think maybe WP:BLP should take precedence over WP:NCP sometimes. Just as I think there is an unpleasant odour around the titling issue of the Yusuf Islam BLP, and just as there is an unpleasant odour around the gratuitous "English name ..., Wogs-begin-at-Calais name ..." leads in a few of our BLPs. I am now thinking that this BLP title is problematic too. Is it right to be counting old sources, if the lady is divorced and still singing. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP doesn't mention naming an article (aside from privacy issues and one example in footnotes). Can you specifically show me which part of it we are referring to? --George Ho (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll admit there's most definitely pros and cons to the renaming, I personally think renaming to said article and redirecting "Cheryl Cole" to said article is fine but that's just my opinion. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

My response. Very different circumstances, I know, but we've moved articles like Kellie Maloney and Chelsea Manning (which involve a name change) fairly quickly. The circumstances there are somewhat more complex and controversial, so I'm not sure why we can't do it here. She got divorced, remarried, doesn't want to use her former married name, the media are not using it any more, so we should follow. Just out of interest, I tried to look up how long it was after she married Ashley Cole that we moved the article from Cheryl Tweedy to Cheryl Cole. They married in July 2006, but I haven't managed to locate the log. Can anyone shed some light on that? Also, for the record, I didn't nominate this, but fixed things for the nominator. This is Paul (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheryl singer results include Fernandez-Versini. --George Ho (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, leave transgendered / transsexual people out of this. --George Ho (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

That issue was raised by someone in a previous discussion, so I'm not sure what the problem is with mentioning it again. Putting that aside though, I've no doubt if we trawled Wikipedia for long enough we could find any number of people who've changed their names through marriage, via deed poll and so on. I don't tend to keep an eye on celebrity marriages, but one that springs to mind is Samantha Womack, who changed her name upon marriage, and had been professionally known as Samantha Janus before then. We could also cite The Artist Formerly Known as Prince, but I think that predates Wikipedia. I suspect the reason your Bing search found hits for Cheryl Fernandez-Versini is because that is now her surname. The idea of a move to Cheryl Fernandez-Versini was pretty much ruled out some time ago, but what is certain is that she's no longer Cheryl Cole. This is now the fourth discussion we've had about moving the article in a ridiculously short amount of time, and I can imagine if we don't address this somehow then the subject will be raised again and again. If there's no rule preventing a move, then let's do it, and go back to doing something a bit more constructive. If we don't move it then there needs to be some kind of ban for a set period (say three months) on a fifth nomination. This is Paul (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per my statement in the previous RM; she hasn't always been known by a singular name. This is different from people like Adele or Madonna. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose per above comments by George Ho and WP:NCP guidelines. IPadPerson (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Umm... it's a guideline, not a policy. Either follow the rules or common sense, but I never heard (or forgotten) the singer "Cheryl" or "Cheryl Cole" until now. --George Ho (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The OP is right - this is getting stupid now. Four page move requests in three months is in fact more than "getting stupid", but is way beyond stupid. Also to assume that the rest of the civilised world bases her used name around a Wikipedia article is flattering to the project, but rather unlikely. My opposition is based on the fact that this is quite simply a case of continual requests until succesful, and that arguments presented against the move in the previous three requests are still valid.

I am also interested in hearing further from Davey2010, who in the previous rename request stated "whatever the outcome this would be a last request I think" - well, not only are we here again, but Davey is seemingly supportive of a rename. Based on his previous comment, it would be fair to assume that he would oppose any new requests as he would support the outcome of the last one? Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe that's because I forgot that I previously said that ? ... With all respect I can't remember every fucking sentence I say on here you know!

Back on topic - I will however admit saying "whatever the outcome this would be a last request I think" was a poor statement to make and shouldn't have said it since I can't control who makes a request, However I never stated I wouldn't make another !vote if one arose,

Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - It should remain as Cheryl Cole. Professional she is now known as "Cheryl", legally she is now known as "Cheryl Fernandez-Versini" but most importantly, she is commonly known as "Cheryl Cole", and has always will be. I guarantee that when people google her, people goole "cheryl cole". She ha never been known as just Cheryl either, unlike Rihanna, Madonna, Adele etc. I know Beyonce was change to Beyonce from Beyonce Knowles, but she has really always been known as Beyonce, even in DC.  — ₳aron 18:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support But suggest Cheryl Fernandez-Versini her professional name on television programmes such as the x-factor. The current designation makes Wikipedia, I think, seem either out of touch or utterly obtuse. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Previously, you opposed "Fernandez-Versini"; what changed your mind? Also, to what designation are you referring? --George Ho (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Time changed my mind. It didn't take very much. I consider the current Wikipedia designation Cheryl Cole as either out of touch or utterly obtuse. It's not her current name. Gregkaye ✍♪ 01:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, the article title needs to have a surname (family name). She became famous as Cheryl Cole. Newspapers and the BBC either call her Cheryl Fernandez-Versini or Cheryl Cole. Sooner or later the article will need to be moved to her new family name (if she sticks with it). There are other singers called Cheryl; Cheryl (singer) is not a helpful article title. Imagine if we applied the Cheryl (singer) article name concept to other articles Angela (politician) or Red Ed (politician); it is not sensible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddy1 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose "Cheryl Cole" is WP:NATURALDAB and fairly common. AND still in use -- 7Nov2014,9Nov2014,20Oct201420Oct2014 -- "Cheryl Cole" is quite clearly used as the headline descriptor, therefore the most visible name to the readership of these. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I'm fairly sure this is the 6th or 7th move nomination, not the 4th, unless you mean 4th in 2014 -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. The consensus is that since she changed here name, she is most commonly referred to as "Cheryl Fernandez-Versini" in reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Cheryl Cole → Cheryl Fernandez-Versini – She has been known as this name for some time now. Looking at Google results, typing in "Cheryl Cole", the first suggestions are now for "Cheryl Fernandez Versini". Other than when a fellow X Factor judge accidentally called her Cole, I'm not aware that any other media call her this name. 5 albert square (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support per prior discussion. This is her name, both legally and professionally, and the media no longer call her Cheryl Cole. –anemoneprojectors– 11:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - I think it's now an acceptable time to change it, too.  — Calvin999 11:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Truth be told I honestly hate the name!, But that aside I'd imagine most people would now know her as "Cheryl Fernandez-Versini", The article can't stay as "Cheryl Cole" forever so now seems a better time than any to move it. –Davey2010^Talk 14:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support per above. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support even this toilet attendant thumping "thug" deserves acknowledgement of her own name. This change should have been made long ago. Issues such as relate to Hillary Clinton do not apply here with the subject consistently using and insisting on the use of the proposed name. GregKaye 11:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Clearly her professional name, and something we've done for countless others in a far quicker timeframe, including the lady herself on the occasion of her previous marriage. Oh, and btw, why is there no mention of her second marriage under personal life? This is Paul (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose — Longstanding career as "Cheryl Cole", and even in her professional singing career, she only goes by "Cheryl". A one-year marriage is hardly worth warranting a move, when the majority of her career, both domestically and internationally, she's been referred to as "Cheryl Cole". In a standard Google search, "Cheryl Cole" pulls in 19,300,000 results, while "Cheryl Fernandez-Versini" pulls in 3,010,000 results. That is a difference of 16,290,000 results. In a Google News search, "Cheryl Cole" pulls 1,890,000 results, while "Cheryl Fernandez-Versini pulls 541,000 results, again a significant difference. Per this, "Cole" still pulls a stronger presence, which relates to the common-name policy. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support WP:COMMONNAME says, "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change" (emphasis mine). Published sources who now use "Cheryl Cole" are in a tiny minority. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment But even in the search results, Cole is still associated to Cheryl's reports, and shouldn't that hold significant weight, especially within her music career, which she is most known for, especially since it also states: "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. A search engine may help to collect this data; when using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia". When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources (exclude works from Books, LLC when searching Google Books[7]). Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations; for detailed advice on the use of search engines and the interpretation of their results, see Wikipedia:Search engine test." The search engine results for News show favor for "Cole" over "Fernandez-Versini", a.k.a. significant weight, a.k.a. the most frequently used name, especially within major international organizations. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You're ignoring the time factor. Limit your searches to the past year and you get vastly different results. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Cut down to the past year, "Cole" still maintains 4,480,000 results while "Fernandez-Versini" maintains 1,480,000 results in the overall Google search from the past-year; "Cole" is still the significant majority. As well with "Book" results, "Cole" receives a total of 1,230 results while "Fernandez-Versini" holds 522 results. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

How (and why) are you cutting down general search results? News gives 525K to "Fernandez-Versini" and 95K to Cole. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It requests which names are most-frequently used; it does not state (in its paragraph) that it is following the person's name change itself. As it also states: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. So you're saying her changing her name overpowers the sources within the article, and the overall news and books results? I'd think not, because she could easily divorce Mr. Fernandez-Versini tomorrow, especially considering in her music career she's predominately known as either "Cheryl Cole" or "Cheryl". livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 02:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And again, you're ignoring the time factor. Let's take the Bombay/Mumbai naming as an example. Bombay has centuries' worth of academic books, papers, literature, newspaper articles, travel guides, and pop culture references behind it. It would take Mumbai decades and decades to catch up. But our article is named Mumbai because that's what is commonly used now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually not ignoring it, I'm more so pointing out other factors and more so trying to figure out why those are being ignored, especially when it comes to sources (which Wikipedia relies heavily on). And comparing a singer and television personality to a historical location is kind of an unfair comparison, wouldn't you say so? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 02:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, the same guidelines apply. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

But my question is still not answered, you're saying TIME outweighs the vast majority of sources within the article, which the common-name policy also calls to take into account? That seems a bit contradictory, don't you think? That's saying the past 10-12 months is worth more than 10+ years of sources and notability within the music industry? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 02:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The music industry is not exempt from all the clauses in WP:COMMONNAME, including the one I quoted in my support !vote. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• oooo, look at this:

"cheryl Fernandez-Versini" gets "About 578,000 results"[1] for the last years news

"cheryl cole" gets "About 59,100 results"[2] while

GregKaye 16:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Even just looking at "recent" Google News, CFV has 591,000 results, CC has 265,000 results. –anemoneprojectors– 20:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Cheryl Fernandez-Versini → Cheryl (entertainer) – I truly apologize for bringing this issue up again, but I truly feel that since there has been so much debate over what her last name should be on Wikipedia, it should just be moved to Cheryl (entertainer) because that is her stage name and then we truly don't have to worry about another move again. 2601:8C:4001:DCF4:95CE:54AC:9EA7:1B6C (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose since it took us so long to reach the current decision, and Cheryl Fernandez-Versini is her name at the end of the day. How ever we choose to name this article someone is always going to disagree, and discussions like this can become disruptive. Might I suggest another three or six month moratorium on move requests to stop possible repetition. This is Paul (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose six months moratorum. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:SINGLENAME; "Fernandez-Versini" is so often used, so let's not use parenthetical disamibuguation then. Okay? --Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 04:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  I didn't see that this was proposed before. George Ho (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, since thanks to redirects, she can be found using any of the three surnames she has used to date. Bearhair (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Well it took roughly 6 request moves until it was moved to her new name so it doesn't have a chance in hell of ever being moved to a new name, No point in starting all this shit again - We all eventually agreed on the new name so it should stay at the new name. –Davey2010^Talk 12:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. No opposition towards moving this page. (closed by a page mover) (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Cheryl Fernandez-Versini → Cheryl (entertainer) – After the discussion above I've decided to hopefully fill a last ever request - Many BLPs have gone through various surnames in their lives however this BLP has gone through quite alot, Many requests for this to be moved to F-V had failed until 6 months ago when it was eventually decided it should be moved .... but now 6 months later she's divorced (or going to be divorced) so I'm assuming at some point soon she's going to end up with a new surname and thus all this is going to go in another cycle and start all over again with requests & moving and it could go on forever ..... So I'm proposing that we as a last move request move this article so that we don't have this stupid cycle of after 6months to a year the article has to be moved to a new surname, Many sources even this year still state "Cheryl Cole" (Results on GNews 214,000), "Cheryl V-F" (Results on GNews: 123,000) and just "Cheryl", Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Cheryl (musician), Cheryl (singer) are others I've thought of If that's of any help, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Support

• Support — To once and for-all end the on-going page moves. She's chosen to refer to herself as "Cheryl" in her music career, which is her main notable career choice of almost two-decades. This should end the endless page-request moves! livelikemusic talk! 01:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I must also state that I am supporting the music to "Cheryl (entertainer)" other the other suggested name-changes for the following reason: Cheryl is not known for being a singer; she is an overall entertainer, much like Britney Spears and Madonna (the latter of whom sports "entertainer" in her page title). livelikemusic talk! 01:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nom and livelikemusic.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support as Insertcleverphrasehere said above. Linguist Please respond on the current page. Except on my talk, please ping me (type {{SUBST:ping|Linguist111}} before your message) 15:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Davey2010 and others, as a very sensible suggestion. I did say the other day the article could "stay as Cheryl Fernandes-Versini for the rest of this decade" but did so in disdain at the prospect of yet another move discussion. A move to Cheryl (entertainer), however, would hopefully put an end to all that endless keybashing. This is Paul (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support, though I've been against this move in the past, it's probably the only way to stop the myriad move discussions happening in future, so it makes sense. She uses the mononym professionally and Googling "Cheryl" does show that even news sources use by the mononym now. anemoneprojectors 08:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support I guess it's the only logical solution. Alternatively we could just ban her from marrying ever again! :D--5 albert square (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Hahaha I love that idea ... If only we could make it happen –Davey2010^Talk 14:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• We could ask Jimbo if he would be so kind as to do that. That might be a first, us taking a celebrity to court to stop them marrying again. Might open up a whole new avenue for other court cases! :p--5 albert square (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Alternatively, we could ask parliament to debate the pros and cons of preventing her from entering into further nuptials. This is Paul (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe I should marry her, and change my last name to "(entertainer)" beforehand! Or maybe we should make a law saying that any fiancés Cheryl may have in the future must change their last name to "(entertainer)". This should solve this page move problem, easily. (Unfortunately, given that she's almost twice my age, and other obvious reasons, there's no chance that either of those things will happen :-P) Linguist Please respond on the current page. Except on my talk, please ping me (type {{SUBST:ping|Linguist111}} before your message) 20:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• 5 albert square - I can't think of anyone who would want to marry Jimbo ,
• This is Paul - That's a brilliant idea! - Wouldn't be suprised if it legit reached over 1000 sigs or whatever it is,
• Linguist111 - Marrying her would probably be a living nightmare on so many levels but If you'd sacrifice your happiness to stop page moves then you deserve an OBE! . –Davey2010^Talk 20:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Marrying a woman twice my age to stop a Wikipedia page from being renamed... hmmm, maybe not a great idea on second thought (or on first thought). Linguist Please respond on the current page. Except on my talk, please ping me (type {{SUBST:ping|Linguist111}} before your message) 21:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oh shit I'd missed the age - Yeah probably not a wise idea , –Davey2010^Talk 21:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

I don't see a reason against this move. There are multiple good reasons for the move. Aside from her saying she is only using her first name, I don't think there is anyone else at her level of fame with the name "Cheryl", at least in the UK; she's well-renowned and people who search for "Cheryl" on WP and see a title like Cheryl (entertainer) will know it's her regardless of the mononymous title, and will clearly see it's her by the info in the lead, infobox etc. This means that hopefully there will be no necessity in moving the page again after this. Linguist Please respond on the current page. Except on my talk, please ping me (type {{SUBST:ping|Linguist111}} before your message) 15:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

It is worth noting that if you Google the name Cheryl you get pages of stuff about her before anything else shows up, which would suggest to me when wanting to know about those in the world of entertainment, Cheryl is as common a search term as something like Adele or Madonna. This is Paul (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Exactly.
I said above, in "Change of name 3", the article should stay as it is, but that was only because of the possible continuation of page moves/requested moves that may result if the article was moved again, due to Cheryl's constant name changes. I'm supporting this move as it seems there's a good chance there will be no moves needed in the future. Linguist Please respond on the current page. Except on my talk, please ping me (type {{SUBST:ping|Linguist111}} before your message) 16:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I was sure I commented here last night, but in reply to "you get pages of stuff about her before anything else shows up", page 2 includes Cheryl Wheeler and Cheryl Frances-Hoad. Page 3 includes Dr. Cheryl McGeachan and Cheryl Richardson. Page 4 includes Cheryl Arkison, Cheryl Fergison, Cheryl Dunn, Cheryl Wood, Cheryl Yeoh, Cheryl Morgan, Cheryl Kaiser and Cheryl McKinnon. Page 5 has only 3 results for Cheryl F-V. So not pages of stuff about Cheryl F-V before anything else. I just wanted to point that out before I decide how to !vote. anemoneprojectors 08:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I fear I was being a tad ironic, but the fact is that the majority of top search results for the name Cheryl do relate to Cheryl F-V. This is Paul (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Cheryl (singer) as proposed. A number of the oppose !votes were more concerned with the quantity of move requests than the accuracy of the name. Article stability is important, but accuracy and clarity are also important. The proposer and supporters noted that "singer" is a more accurate disambiguator than "entertainer." In establishing consensus for this position, I noted that the word "entertainer" is not currently used at all in the article, and the lede describes her first and foremost as a singer. While numerically the vote is not clear, this is not really a vote, and I see much more merit in the comments relating to the accuracy of the disambiguator used. The commenters concerned with article stability will have their objections satisfied when this article is at a stable title, which this move will hopefully accomplish. (Or at least until Cheryl changes her name again.) (closed by page mover) Bradv 14:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Cheryl (entertainer) → Cheryl (singer) – WP:CRITERIA No. 1, 2 and 5: She's a singer, known as "the singer Cheryl" in sources, not "the entertainer Cheryl". Use normal English which readers will recognize. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Bradv 00:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oh God, not again.[4][5][6][7][8][9] Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Nope as per Chaheel Riens - The article was moved by myself as a last ditch attempt to stop the stupid requests ... we're not going to have a whole new debate on whether she's an entertainer or singer - She's both so as such the article stays. –Davey2010^Talk 13:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

No, in fact not again - yes there have been umpteen other requests about her many surnames, but having finally settled on "Cheryl" we now have a chance to call a singer a singer. Davey2010 you are more than welcome to absent yourself from the discussion about (singer) or (entertainer). The article lead actually says "is an English singer, dancer and television personality." so entertainer isn't mentioned in lead or the rest of article. Nor in most sources, 6,990 hits which call the singer a singer, compared to 6 hits. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree this isn't about her surname however regardless the point is we've finally settled on a name as well as a description .... Not everyone is going to be happy with "Entertainer" but if we move then someone's going to find fault with "Singer" so to save the whole description debacle the article should stay as it is, As for the lede - Well we can't have the article as "Cheryl (singer, dancer and television personality) as that's just too long so Entertainer was chosen as a shorter description - Moving to singer gives the impression she's just a singer which is obviously not the case, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 13:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Please look at this: 6,990 hits (singer Cheryl) compared to 6 hits (entertainer Cheryl) then explain what the problem is with this RM. Please. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

If we're playing google top trumps, then how's about this - 327,000 hits for "Cheryl Cole annoying" and 289,000 hits for "cheryl fernandez-versini annoying" But we don't mention that in the lede either. In all seriousness, my reasoning is per Davey - she is not just a singer, but by fulfilling the roles described in the lede - "singer, dancer and television personality" she meets the "entertainer" criteria.

Also - is she really accurately described as a singer? What is her more commmon vocation now? She last released a single in 2014... Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Cheryl (annoying) is a suitable disambiguator. By all means adjust the search parameters for 2016-2017, but she's still called "singer Cheryl", no one calls her "entertainer Cheryl" except a few Wikipedia editors. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral – this article is well on its way to breaking the record for the most RMs, so I sympathise with Chaheel and Davey's “enough's enough” argument, which was one reason I at first was close to opposing this move. I also thought the same as Davey's point of view (Moving to singer gives the impression she's just a singer which is obviously not the case), but I think IIO has a valid point too – that sources refer to her more as a singer rather than an entertainer. Nevertheless, this strikes me as something of a WP:COMMONNAME/“what the sources say” argument in a sense, and in my opinion this argument is not the strongest possible in every situation (cf. Davey's “just a singer” comment). I don't have sufficient basis for either a support vote or an oppose vote at the moment, so for now I'm at neutral. Linguist^unEins^uno 15:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Reaffirming neutral following the above comments by Chaheel and IIO. On one hand, sources do tend to refer to her as a singer and not an entertainer, as shown in the links provided by IIO (including when you exclude the sources talking about other singers named Cheryl, tabloids etc.). On the other hand, as pointed out by Chaheel, Cheryl is also largely notable for endeavours other than her singing, and so the disambiguator (entertainer) may cover this better than (singer). In the end, either title is alright for me. Linguist^unEins^uno 14:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: You're joking, right? How many move requests does this one make? I'm going to say oppose because entertainer is a more accurate description. Yes she sings, but she also presents, and does other stuff too. This is Paul (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This is the eighth move request, according to the top of the talk page. There were four failed move requests from Cheryl Cole (one to Cheryl Fernandez-Versini, one to Cheryl (musician) and two to Cheryl (singer)), followed by a successful move request to Cheryl Fernandez-Versini. There were then two move requests from that title to Cheryl (entertainer) – the first failed and the second was successful. Linguist^unEins^uno 16:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

There will inevitably be another move request to (singer) next year as the current (dab) is a Wikipedia affectation at odds with sources. If painlessness is the objective then move it to (singer) like every other western singer except she who is above all others and let the article title be stable. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose — The endless requests to change the name of this article has to stop. It's ridiculous. Plus, Cheryl is more than simply a singer; she is a dancer, author, television personality, etc. so to move this page is pointless. People really need to spend their free time elsewhere. livelikemusic talk! 18:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per above and previous discussions. Enough is enough. She is more than a singer which is why entertainer was agreed upon. 5 albert square (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Can't understand the problem here. Whatever else she's done, she is quite clearly first and foremost a singer. This "entertainer" rubbish is getting out of hand. A disambiguator is solely there to distinguish one person from another, not to cover everything someone has ever done. "Singer" does that quite sufficiently. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• she is quite clearly first and foremost a singer - The lede states is an English singer, dancer and television personality so she's quite clearly more than just a singer, Readers may know her through XFactor for instance and they may have no idea she was or is a singer before that .... (Not everyone is going to be clued up on peoples past etc)... Having it as "Singer" just misdescribes her and creates more pointless drama like this, "Entertainer" covers it all and is the most appropriate name here. –Davey2010^Talk 17:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Readers may know her through XFactor for instance and they may have no idea she was or is a singer before that: I must assume you are joking here, given how ridiculous that comment is. Nobody who watched X-Factor could possibly be unaware that she was a singer. It was continually mentioned and she invariably sang on the show! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. As previously stated she's not only a singer but also a dancer, tv personality and many other things. Simply an entertainer. ArturSik (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Presumably Tom Jones isn't a singer then? Given he was also a judge on a TV show! The many years that he was a singer have presumably been negated by his TV appearances. These comments make absolutely no sense. Disambiguators generally take the thing people are best-known for; they don't attempt to include absolutely everything they're known for. That's not their purpose. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I'm with IIO on this, "entertainer" should really be a dab of last resort and here we have the perfectly good "singer" that we can use instead. Think of readers trying to reach this article – even if they are coming because of her television work, it seems to me that they would be much more likely to recognise the article they're after if it has "singer" in the title than the vague "entertainer". Jenks24 (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• They'd probably search for Cheryl in the first instance. This is Paul (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• If we're being honest, they'd probably search for Cheryl Cole in the first instance! That's how most people still know her. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• I was thinking that too, but looking at the move archive above, that was the root of this long string of RMs. Linguist^unEins^uno 12:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support per IIO, Jenks and Necrothesp. The proposed disambiguator better describes what she's known for. "Enough is enough" is not a valid argument either. WP:NOHURRY applies, and if it takes us 1 year, 2 years, 10 years or more to get to the right title, then so be it.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Well no it doesn't, if anything it misdecribes her, "Enough is enough" is a valid and justified response when there's been repeated and failed RMs, As it currently stands this is the correct title. –Davey2010^Talk 17:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I am hugely against Amakuru's comment of "if it takes us 1 year, 2 years, 10 years or more to get to the right title, then so be it", which is basically saying "we'll keep relisting this until we get what we want, and if consensus goes against us we'll just relist in a month, and then again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again. In fact, the opposite was decided last year where it was concluded that the constant RM's were disruptive and should be stopped. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn’t say that the proposed disambiguator misdescribes her, given her 12-year-long singing career, and how that is how sources describe her. I’m personally not so fussed about an article’s title, as long as it is not unreasonably erroneous or in violation of WP:BLP. When people click on a link to a Wikipedia article, they’ll usually want to read the actual article and have little interest in the title, redirects help when the title does not match the term they searched for. As far as the repeated move requests go (“Enough is enough”), there is some validity in this argument, in that big numbers of move requests for an individual article (such as this one, which has been the subject of seven (including five failed) move requests) are likely to be viewed as disruptive. Linguist^unEins^uno 18:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: Who is this "us" you're talking about? The article has been listed many times, and on some of those listings it has been moved. I have no particular skin in this game, I haven't been campaigning for one name or another for years, with a view to railroading it through. I just looked at the nomination and thought it made some sense. You could argue it both ways though, entertainer or singer, it's not really a big deal. The point I was trying to make though is that shutting down the conversation by saying "enough is enough" is the very opposite of the collegiate cooperative spirit we try to adopt here. Repeated relistings immediately after previous ones are one thing, and the community usually polices those effectively, but this one is a year and a half after the last, and has had lots of constructive engagement, so it's not valid to say we shouldn't have had the discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of how long the space of time between one RM and another is, the listing of an individual article at RM more than once or twice is likely to be viewed as tedious by some editors. I’m hoping that, however this RM concludes, it will be an indication of this to other editors, and that we’ll have reached a title that we can agree is at least reasonable. As I have said, while I think Cheryl (entertainer) is a reasonable title (and I therefore don’t see an outstanding need to move it to Cheryl (singer)), I think Cheryl (singer) is a reasonable title as well (and don’t see a need to oppose a move to this title either). So, in my view, this RM wasn’t a necessity, but, on its own, it’s not harmful either. If it’s not broken, there’s no need to fix it, but if someone (or multiple editors) wants to fix it, that’s fine. Just as long as we avoid page move wars. In my opinion, it is better to devote time to more important things, such as encyclopaedic prose, sourcing and perhaps GA or FA promotion for more “advanced” articles (like this one), rather than something which provides little comparable encyclopaedic value. Linguist^unEins^uno 14:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. She's an entertainer who is more fully rounded than just a singer. Famous for dancing, and hosting shows as well as singing. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

What those saying "more than a singer" "not just a singer" should consider is whether that is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. In WP:RS she is not an "entertainer", since books, newspapers, magazines all say "singer". wikt:entertainer is not a WP:HONORIFIC, a rung above (singer); the word usually means entertainers of the music-hall variety. This BLP isn't an "entertainer" in WP:RS, she's a "singer". Likewise the BLP subject isn't an "actress" or "dancer", as the article states: "Cheryl holds the record for the British female artist with the most number one singles at five.". That explains why to books, newspapers, magazines and TV she is a "singer". In ictu oculi (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. It seems a lot of editors commenting here don't really understand what disambiguators are for. They're not to list everything someone is known for. They're simply to distinguish one person from another. We therefore take the best-known thing they're known for. Does Cheryl dance for a living? No, she doesn't. She dances while she sings, as do many singers. Did she just suddenly appear out of nowhere as a TV personality? No, she didn't. She became an X-Factor judge because she was well-known as a singer. Does any source call her an entertainer? Nope; they call her a singer. Anyone arguing for "entertainer" is missing the point of disambiguation completely. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Well hang on a minute every person that's been a judge on XFactor has only been one because they were known as a singer so that point is moot (You wouldn't put a footballer as a judge would you?), Exactly and "entertainer" distinguishes her from the likes of Cheryl Ladd, Cheryl Lynn, Cheryl Baker and so on and so fourth, Having her as "Singer" would be the same as having her as "TV personality" both are incorrect one could argue she's both there so again "Entertainer" covers both singer and tv personality, yes she was known as a singer however that was then and this is now. –Davey2010^Talk 14:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Really? Don't recall the songs released by Simon Cowell, Louis Walsh and Sharon Osbourne. Would you care to enlighten me? And are actors not also entertainers in the general sense? Plus, how on earth does it distinguish her from Cheryl Baker? It's a term that harks back to music hall and is only appropriately used in the present for people like Bruce Forsyth! So, you're saying she's not now known as a singer? Of course she is! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment on the Comment: We don't take the best-known thing - we take the most accurate thing. In this case it is more accurate to call her an entertainer as that covers her activities as described in the article best. That allows us to distinguish one person from another. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support. A parenthetical disambiguator is not a comprehensive summary of the subject's accomplishments. It should be the most concise term to clearly differentiate the subject from others of the same name. This Cheryl is best known as a singer, so that should be the disambiguator. —  AjaxSmack  03:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• "It should be the most concise term to clearly differentiate the subject from others of the same name." - "Entertainer" does just that, Nope I disagree she's best known as both a singer and a tv personality. –Davey2010^Talk 03:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Necrothesp - are you also claiming that Cheryl Ladd, Cheryl Baker and Cheryl Lynn are not known as singers? I don't think anybody here has ever claimed that she's not known as a singer, only that it's not the only thing and that it's not the most accurate thing to describe her. Valid point about Walsh, Osbourne and Cowell not being singers - although Cheryl herself hasn't actually released anything since 2014, and her last single failed to make the top 100. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• I didn't bring them up in the first place! Singers are all entertainers in the most general sense. So are actors. Dancers. TV personalities. Circus performers. Comedians. Musicians. They're all "entertainers" (not that we'd generally use that term for them, or indeed for the Cheryl formerly known as Cole). So I fail to see why bringing them up was relevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support. She sings but she doesn't entertain me... but seriously she's known for being a singer, that's why she's famous. Her contributions to dance wouldn't warrant a Wikipedia page and she's been a judge on X-Factor for the very fact that she was in a successful girl band. Zarcadia (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "She sings but she doesn't entertain me..." That, ladies and gentlemen, should be enough to justify this move per WP:NOVOTE. —  AjaxSmack  15:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Conversely, I think her singing is a source of entertainment for many people - albeit possibly not in the manner she intends. Chaheel Riens (talk)
      • I absolutely agree with Chaheel "singing" comes under entertainment so all's you've done is proved that point even more, Thanks for that. –Davey2010^Talk 00:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support, after reading the above discussions. "Singer" is apt for people primarily known as singers, with their other activities surrounding and promoting their singing career. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – there is no need to keep changing the article title when it is fine just as it is. She is much more than a singer, she is also a television host which a lot of people know her solely from her appearances on television. Oppose per Davey2010. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 01:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • She's not a TV host. She's a TV judge. So are many other singers and dancers. Does that negate their years of singing and dancing? Given that's the only reason they were invited to be a judge in the first place. Do you really think a TV judge is an "entertainer"? Weird. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Why do you think that just by calling her an "entertainer" we are in some way denying her any other talents or abilities? Quite the opposite - by giving her the title of "entertainer" we are acknowledging that she has many strings to her bow - some of which overshadow her role as a singer. The only distinction we are drawing is that "singer" is not the most accurate of terms that could be used to describe her. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.