- Dot the i (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)
I was surprised by the "not moved" decision. At worst, I would have expected a "no consensus", but expected that there should be a compelling argument in favour of WP:IAR (i.e. to ignore the guidelines and go with dot the i) in order not to move. I could see none, and the arguments in support of this were incredibly weak, based mostly on browser font, what the poster shows, etc. However, the arguments to follow the guidelines (WP:NCCAPS in particular, although many others apply) seemed strong. Ultimately, surely in the absence of a compelling argument for WP:IAR, we should default to the relevant guideline, in this case WP:NCCAPS and WP:TITLEFORMAT.Rob Sinden (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rob has already discussed his objections with me as the move closer. That discussion can be seen at User talk:EdJohnston#Talk:Dot the i#Requested move. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It may be worth comparing dot the i to Star Trek Into Darkness. In the case of the latter, just about all reliable sources write "Into" as opposed to "into", so it makes sense to invoke WP:IAR there. However, with dot the i, we have a mix of uses, and in the RM, I cited the American Film Institute and the British Film Institute's capitalization of the "i" as a reason to capitalize here also. I think that if we have mixed styling of the title in various sources, we should default to the guidelines. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per my statement above. There is not a universality to sources writing specifically dot the i that supports invoking IAR, in this case the guidelines for capitalization. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn – I was stunned, too. The closer wrote "Both sides have good arguments", but didn't say what any good argument to not move was. I had listed the opposing arguments in the discussion, and they were all completely frivolous. And he wrote "If we followed the style used in the poster, it appears that lower case would win." But that point had already been refuted, as anyone who looked at the poster could see that it was a capital I, and that the "dotting" was by a blood splat above it, not by using a lowercase i. I think the closer didn't follow the discussion very well. Dicklyon (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, leaning Overturn (no consensus to rename). I would advise the closer to avoid using the wording "I would not feel justified in doing this move", as its tentativeness suggests that maybe he should have left it for someone more confident. These comments aside, I think it was a good close. "No move"/"no consensus to move" was within discretion, and a finding of a consensus to rename would have been a stretch. A clear consensus is needed to rename from an original & stable title, especially given the previous discussion reaching a "no consensus".
The nominator here seems to overstate the standing of the guidelines in placing them alongside a policy like IAR. Guidelines are for guidance and may be not-followed with a reason/justification far below a Policy reason. The "no consensus" was not in interpretation of the guideline, but in deciding the standing of the reasons to not follow the guideline against the standing of the guidelines. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:TITLEFORMAT is policy. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are quite right, half defeating my second paragraph, pushing me further to "no consensus to move", and not "consensus to not move". If policy says the i should be I, then the reasons for not folowing policy in this case should be made clearer. The poor default font choice for I, an issue not considered in the writing of policy, could be a reason. I think the case would be well relisted in a couple of months, hopefully with a clearer structure of debate. --SmokeyJoe (talk)
- Yes, it's kind of funny where he says "The creator of the movie was trying to make some kind of visual pun using the typography of the title." Probably he means the creator of the poster, who used a blood splat to put a dot over the capital i. A few sources do interpret that as a lowercase i, but must don't, and there was no plausible reason given for WP to. After all, we don't copy the lowercase d from the poster's "dot the I". Dicklyon (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the thing is, we did. The “D” was lowercased shortly after the initial move discussion; I re-capitalized it shortly after the recent move discussion was closed. —Frungi (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I am an uninvolved editor here, but it looks to me like editors are also overlooking WP:TITLETM, which says article titles should usually follow standard English forms without regard to trademarks. This has been central to the arguments over the perennial naming discussions at Talk:M*A*S*H and related articles, where consensus seems to be that M*A*S*H, iPod and eBay seem to be among a small handful of exceptions to WP:TITLETM. I doubt this article's topic carries anywhere near the notability required to constitute such an exception. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 17:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fully endorse, I think WP:IAR is always implicit in every discussion, we're not beholden to the rules. This is perhaps the most fitting article in the history of the encyclopedia to ignore MOS capitalization rules about. Red Slash 19:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though the majority of sources style it as “Dot the I”? Then let me ask: How does ignoring those sources, and ignoring common English-language title capitalization conventions, improve Wikipedia more than following them would? The IAR arguments I saw in the RM discussion had nothing to do with improving Wikipedia. —Frungi (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Common sense must be brought to bear on this particular case in which the film's title refers to a lower case "i", the only kind with a "dot". The closer applied common sense in the face of policy arguments which made no sense at all. This was a rightly closed RM. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Horseshit. Even the movie poster uses the capital I, and dots it anyway. Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CIVIL. But, agreed—in what way does WP:Use common names make “no sense at all” for the title of a film? That’s a go-to policy for arguments against following the MOS. —Frungi (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For now, I'm compelled to realize that we must have overlooked other guidelines and policies besides WP:IAR, WP:NCCAPS, and others mentioned above. If I say "weak overturn", then... that would be weaker than I would like to say. I say
overturn to relist (or endorse/overturn and re-create) because I found another policy that I should mention when this title is debated again. Since this contest review should not be a rehash, I must not mention the policy that was not mentioned in the original discussion. I really hope that we allow stronger arguments in the next time. That is all. --George Ho (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I must strike my comment and reverse my vote. MOS:RETAIN is what I found, which I should have mentioned if there is next time. Frankly, it says that debating on spellings is a waste of time, and "dot the i" is an example besides "color vs. colour". Does it contradict other policies? If so, "overturn" and let me discuss it more next time. Otherwise, we are wasting time here voting on either endorsing or overturning the decision made the closer. I can't endorse either for the matter of spelling usage, which the proponents of the original proposal compel me to critically think about. Also, WP:IAR would also mean ignoring MOS:RETAIN, which I should not ignore. --George Ho (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, there is WP:AT#National varieties of English, but it was not mentioned in the original discussion or evaluated during that discussion. If that is compelling enough, I would say "no prejudice to re-create". Is that enough? --George Ho (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
