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 articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maine 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.MaineWikipedia:WikiProject MaineTemplate:WikiProject MaineMaine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
A discussion is currently taking place at Talk:Nicole Maines regarding the potential redirection of this article in to that article. 91.110.126.179 (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2018 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to Doe v. Regional School Unit 26 at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with the caveat that the respondent is actually "Regional School Unit 26" not "Regional School Unit" (i.e., it should be moved to Doe v. Regional School Unit 26). The case at the Maine Supreme Judicial Court (when the IP above refers to "the supreme court" they mean the SJC, which is the top-level appellate court for the state of Maine) is the one that matters, and is the one that renders the dispute notable. The opinion, showing the accurate caption, may be found on the SJC's web site at [1].
It is properly referred to as Doe v. Regional School Unit 26 in scholarly publications, e.g.:
Sterling, Melissa, "To Pee or Not to Pee - Where Is the Question: Transgender Students and the Right to Use Public School Restrooms", 21 Cardozo J.L. & Gender 757 (2014-2015);
Archibald, Catherine Jean, "Transgender Student in Maine May Use Bathroom That Matches Gender Identity - Are Co-Ed Bathrooms Next", 83 UMKC L. Rev. 57 (2014-2015);
Samar, Vincent J., "The Right to Privacy and the Right to Use the Bathroom Consistent with One's Gender Identity", 24 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol'y 33 (2016-2017)
and ten other articles found on Heinonline. This sounds like an easy call. TJRC (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support and speedy close. Should most likely have simply been moved, without opening a discussion. Onel5969TT me 11:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have though no way of moving a page, plus a discussion cements the move with a demonstrable community consensus. This prevents disputes with those who have been redirecting, and diffuses a potential edit warring situation, or accusations of making a point or being confrontational. 91.110.126.179 (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You did the right thing. This falls in the "Unregistered users ... are unable to move pages" bit of WP:RM. As a happy accident, this discussion sussed out the missing "26" in the case name; if you had been able to just boldly move it, it would have ended up at the wrong place. TJRC (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And wasn't suggesting that the IP move it. Simply that it could have been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Where most likely the "26" would have been discovered. Onel5969TT me 17:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to WP:RM and starting a discussion are pretty much the same thing in these cases. Dekimasuよ! 00:27, 3 August 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment I don't care enough to reopen this, but I think that per WP:COMMONNAME, which is the relevant policy, this article really should be named Doe v. Clenchy. Two of the five criteria noted in the policy would argue for Clenchy: it is more recognizable (or at least it gets more google hits and appears more in the sources cited in the article) and is certainly more concise. With regard to the other three criteria, I don't think argue for one over the other. Yilloslime (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that those were generally references to the case that were made before the case was finalized at the Connecticut SJC. TJRC (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean the Maine SJC. At any rate, this is not what I'm finding: When I do a google news search going back 1 month using the search "nicole maines" AND "regional school unit" I get only one hit[2] (this Wikipedia article.) If I instead use "nicole maines" AND "clenchy" I get lots of hits[3]. Yilloslime (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, I meant "Maine".
Clenchy was the name of the Superior Court case, which is decidedly non-notable. Clenchy might be worth a line in the Nicole Maines article, but it isn't the name of this case, and it isn't notable. As a legal case, which is the subject of this article, the correct name of the notable Maine SJC case should be used. We don't misidentify cases, even if a news story relying on stale information might. TJRC (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
