- The Doctor (Doctor Who) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)
PerWP:THE andWP:DEFINITE, definite articles ("the") shouldnot be included in the article title unless it is part of atitle of a work. In this case, the article is part of a proper noun, as it denotes an honorary title. Fictional or otherwise, in such cases, "the" is never included. HoweverUser:BD2412 saw "compelling evidence" that "the Doctor" is the predominant use. However, this is inherent of a definite article, as grammar demands it. That does not mean it becomes an exception as outlined byWP:RMCI, which explicitly statesAny move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it. Even though there seemed to be overwhelming support, none of the supporters had any compelling arguments ascendingWP:ILIKEIT to demonstrate an exception for moving against naming guidelines. There have been previous move requests, and the outcome has always been clearly against moving. The last discussion wasless then a year ago. The move triggers unwanted side effects, as other editors are already starting to capitalize occurences of "The Doctor" as a result of the move, which is clearly in error. In short, the move was agains naming guidelines (which arenot there to ignore) and closing policy.-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}21:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] - Exceptions are specifically alowed toWP:THE andWP:DEFINITE and the argument was that this met them. as I said on the other page, you reading something into the name does not make it the only way to read it. others read that it DID fall into the given exceptions.94.5.45.222 (talk)21:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There are exceptions, but none of them applied in this case; basically, only if the meaning is ambiguous when "the" is present or not, does such an exception exist. There is no ambiguity here.
-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}22:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What you are missing in all this, and it has been pointed out to you, is that the rules your quoting allow exceptions. So therefore it isnt against policy. You are going to have to prove that the exception is wrong. Thats going to be very hard if not impossible with the clear consensus that was shown.AlbinoFerret22:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It allows exceptionsonly when certain conditions are met... you should read the rest of the sentence you keep quoting.
-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}23:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @BD2412: saw the evidence that some of the involved have provided in order to form consensus with a positive outcome. Others like@Andrewa: just knew that it's the right way from the start. Not sure what your problem is.79.120.10.103 (talk)22:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the "right way"? The closing instructions require a "very good reason" to deviate from a long standing consensus, or else tonot move the page. Someome has yet to demonstrate this "very good reason".
-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}22:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good reasons have been given, you refusing to accept them doesn't make them absent.79.120.10.103 (talk)22:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't accept them because they fail to meet the criteria for being a "very good reason", and none have given any other thenWP:ILIKEIT.
-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}23:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]- Actually, they have. Maybe you refuse to see them, so you don't have to accept them. It takes time to read through the entire discussion, but you've been commenting through it the entire time, so I wonder what's your excuse other than poor eyesight.79.120.10.103 (talk)23:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close and remind proposer that there's a difference between a consensus thatinterprets a guideline differently than they do and a consensus thatignores a guideline.Egsan Bacon (talk)23:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close There was consensus for move, and the existing policies seem to have applicable exceptions that would avoid this being an issue of local consensus vs policies / guidelines.PaleAqua (talk)23:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close: Aside from the fact thatWP:THE is just a guideline that allows exceptions, and the fact that a reasonable degree of consensus seems apparent in the discussion,WP:THE can also be interpreted assupporting the move, because it says that (regardless of whether we would capitalize "the" in running text or not) we should include the "the" in the case where "
a word with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same word without the article ". In this case, according to several commenters in the discussion (including me), the word "the" affects the meaning. Here, "the Doctor" is a particular character, but "doctor" could be any doctor. "Doctor" might be "the Doctor", or it might be someone else. Uppercase is not necessary, asWP:THE includes separate consideration for the effect on the meaning of the term. —BarrelProof (talk)00:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] - Endorse Close (involved non-admin editor) as I was involved with this discussion I'll let my comments there stand as to my reasoning and WP:THE. As to this question, the last talk that Edokter shows had 7 total comments of an oppose/support nature (if you include the original proposer,@Technical 13: as an assumed "support" vote) , and the count was 4-3 oppose. Hardly a wide consensus. This talk had a total of 19, with a 15-4 support count. An un-involved admin (@BD2412:) weighed the arguments and the votes and decided on the move. Seems a clear-cut case of being closed to me.Vyselink (talk)00:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As an avid fan of Doctor Who, I find the outcome contrary my opinion of how the article should be named (I won't get into the why here, as this is not the place to rehash the discussion), however the reading of consensus is correct, and thus Iendorse closure. If we always followed Wikipedia naming conventions,The White Album wouldn't be a redirect. --kelapstick(bainuu)01:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close, seems a reasonable reading of the consensus, and the guideline being cited notes that exceptions may apply and that the word can be used in cases where it's a "commonly used proper name", as is the case here.Lankiveil(speak to me)03:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Endorse - the discussion applied common sense, just likeWP:THE says to do right at the beginning.WilyD09:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close Clearly representative of the consensus.Number5713:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not going to !vote on this, but I've noticed in the past thatBD2412 has a (to my mind regrettable) tendency to close discussions on the basis of apparent vote counting rather than making "an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns,while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". There were a number of commenters' statements in this move discussion that were just plain wrong (for instance, that the official BBC Doctor Who page uses "The Doctor" rather than "the Doctor"), and I, for one, would have been very reluctant to close the discussion without having investigated the accuracy of the various statements made therein.Deor (talk)15:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You are issuing personal attacks on the closing administrator AND the people who posted factual statements, yet you probably expect us to take your comment as a valid argument. Time to look up "irony."89.218.74.105 (talk)20:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Deor: When you assert that an editor "has a tendency" to do something, a common courtesy would be to provide examples backing up such a claim. What I, in fact, tend to do is to close a lot of tersely contested discussions that no one else wants to close because they are going to get hammered by one side or the other no matter how the discussion has come out. I will provide my own example, the analysis I laid out atTalk:Chelsea Manning/August 2013 move request analysis by BD2412, in preparation for closing that discussion, which is one of the most ardently contested move discussions in Wikipedia's history, and for which I even received hate mail and was the subject of some rather vitriolic blog posts. I am not unaccustomed to the inevitable criticism that comes with addressing subjects where passions run high, but "an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns" can not mean that a legitimate proposal is held up against the opinion of a substantial merely because those in opposition feel very strongly about their weaker argument.bd2412T17:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, after some cursory poking around, it seems that I owe you an apology. I guess I was thinking primarily of closers other than you in my "tendency to close discussions on the basis of apparent vote counting" remark. There seems to be a faction on Wikipedia that's opposed to various guidelines in the Manual of Style (and in some cases to the very idea of having such a manual); and rather than trying to gain consensus for altering or eliminating it—which would be difficult—they content themselves with creating a local consensus on various talk pages that it should be ignored in particular instances. This seems to me to be one such case. It's the "respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines" part that concerns me—if a group of editors can "win" a move discussion, by virtue of numbers, in contravention of MOS guidelines, perhaps we reallyshouldn't have style guidelines.Deor (talk)22:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Deor, aside from your non-apology apology to BD2412, now you appear to be accusing those who supported the move of colluding to specifically ignore/undermine a WP:MOS. It is a different reading of WP:THE that informed my vote, not being a part of some shadowy "faction". The guideline makes perfect sense in many cases, but some believe (I am one of them) that it isn't applicable in this case. WP:THE says that in certain casesIf a word with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same word without the article, the word with article can be used as the name of a page about that meaning, and the word without article can be used as the name of a separate page. In my reading that applies here, for the reasons already stated below.Vyselink (talk)23:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Deor's response was perfectly appropriate, and the apology is accepted. As to the question of vote counts versus policies, well, there are policies and then there are guidelines (andthen there are guidelines that specifically allow for exceptions). I come to any move discussion with the presumption that active editors who really care about the article will be watching it, and will comment in the move discussion, and that editors who really care about title policy will generally be looking atWP:Requested moves (not every such editor, but enough at any given time). In that view, the participation in a discussion like this is likely to reflect the view of the community of interest as a whole, and absolutely matters as a factor. If policies and guidelines are flexible enough to allow several different titles to bepermissible for a title, then moving to the most widely supported title should not be impeded by the mere inertia of the page having existed at a different title for some period of time.bd2412T23:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close. I'm not sure the closer fully investigated the matterN but none of the arguments presented here that the close was incorrect hold water. "Title ofa work" is not in the guidelineWP:THE, and "The Doctor" is the title of the character. (We don't know his name, and it might not be appropriate to use, perWP:COMMONNAME, even if we did know it.) —Arthur Rubin(talk)19:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Err... direct quote:These conditions are sometimes met if the page name is: 1)the title of a work or publication... I still don't get how everyone can be selectively blind to these condition when they areexplicitly laid out.
-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}22:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from someone who voted to move (so biased Endorse Close?). Edokter seems to think that the linked guideline supports his position. Fine. But many/most of the voters believed that the guideline could equally be interpreted to support their position. It's one thing to discount "uninformed" votes and the like, but these were not canvassed votes from some off-Wikipedia forum. They are legit and had backing in the policy. (I say this as someone who has been really, really, painfully right before, and it's so OBVIOUS why are these people all voting the wrong way, but still accepted that the consensus inexplicably didn't go my way.) And yet, even if we were to hypothetically grant that Edokter was 100% correct... it says right at the top ofWP:THE that Naming Conventions admit occasional exceptions. And even if it *didn't* admit occasional exceptions, conventions are just that, conventions, that reflect existing consensus, not mandate it (barring legal / foundation issues). At what point does Edokter's desired close of no move just become an admin supervote? 15:4? 30:5? 100:7? Every single active editor except 1 : 1? Wikipedia is a community project, not a science experiment. There is no One True Way to have a manual of style or to title pages. A sufficient consensus was in this discussion to move the pageeven if Edokter was 100% correct under the existing guideline, because that guideline is subordinate to the community and should be a reflection of it.SnowFire (talk)20:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And yetWP:RMCI is very clear about these situations; even if consensus goes against these guidelines, it should not be moved. Could it be that the closing instructions are a result of a wider and long standing consensus,exactly to avoid these situations?
-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}23:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You are still assuming your favored outcome is "right" and that a move "goes against these guidelines." But anybody can say that; I could just as easily argue that RMCI means that even if everyone had votedagainst the move, the guidelines support me so we should move anyway. The vast majority of contested moves are precisely in cases where either people disagree about what the guideline implies, or there are two-three clashing guidelines and the community must decide which title takes precedence.
- My second point, alluded to above, is that evenif you are "right" - something I do not grant - it still wouldn't mean much. The guidelines & MOS today are not the same as the guidelines & MOS in 2001. How'd they get there? By individual discussions and cases like these. This kind of debate, which was very well-attended byWP:RM standards, exactly IS the "broader consensus" you're referring to, and something to cite in lesser trafficed RM's about removing or adding a "The."SnowFire (talk)23:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Edokter, you seem to be skipping past this part of WP:THE: "Convention: In general, a definite ("the") or indefinite ("a"/"an") article should be included at the beginning of the title of a Wikipedia page only if at least one of the following conditions is met:
- If a word with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same word without the article, the word with article can be used as the name of a page about that meaning, and the word without article can be used as the name of a separate page. For example, "crown" means the headgear worn by a monarch or other high dignitaries, while "The Crown" is a term used to indicate the government authority and the property of that government in a monarchy."
- "Doctor" has a different meaning than "the Doctor" (I do agree with you that capitalizing "the" in the middle of sentences is incorrect) but "Doctor", left as it is, could mean Doctor Martha Jones, who in universe was an MD, or any doctor before or past in the series. In this case "the Doctor" has "a different meaning with respect to the same word without the article". While no Doctor Who fan would ever mistake MJ for the Doctor, WP:THE, as shown above, can be seen to favor the move.Vyselink (talk)00:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I didn't participate in the move discussion, but consensus seems clear.CalidumT|C19:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Disclosure: I did support the move. The interesting thing here is that the same guideines, andMOS:the in particular, are being cited by both sides, with opposite conclusions. Perhaps some clarification of the guideline(s) is necessary. That seems to me to be the next port of call if anyone wishes to pursue this further. But a rough consensus was clear and policy-based, so there's no case for overturning the move.Andrewa (talk)22:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close. It'ssnowing.WP:THE presents a "default rule", and that rule is prefaced with "In general". That very far from a hard rule. The spirit and text of guidelineWP:THE is to avoid "noise words" and not to "violate common usage". Arguments and evidence were presented by supporters that Doctor Who places an idiosyncratic significance on the word "the". It it not a "noise word" here, it has a distinct common usage within the topic-area. The closer reasonably concluded that the arguments and evidence presented were within the spirit and text of guidelineWP:THE.Alsee (talk)14:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
