Wikipedia

Talk:Deadmau5/Archive 3

< Talk:Deadmau5
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Cuchullain in topic Requested Move 4: Hopefully the last RM
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

The article’s content should be consistent with the title

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The current title of this article is “Deadmaus”. Therefore, for the time being, we should use “Deadmaus” in the article text, or at the very least in the lede (the very first part of the article). —Frungi (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I really hope this title gets changed back to "Deadmau5", because by putting this in the lede, we're effectively providing misinformation. His stage name is most certainly not Deadmaus, and he has no releases under that name. I'll of course leave it for now, but I hope it helps the admins see how uneffective this name change is. Nb07wiki (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I personally have not seen any need to edit the article to say Deadmaus until this is much more settled than this (either no one is complaining or it is moved back, and guess which is more likely?) Apteva (talk) 06:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Do we REALLY want to go through this whole song and dance again?

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

The original move to Deadmaus was disruptive and consensus is quite clearly for moving back to the original policy-supported stable title of Deadmau5. Why did the closing admin of this RM NOT just do that? PantherLeapord (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The admin did as was asked. Nothing wrong with that; and given the contentious nature that was for the best. Given the three moves, the original and the move review which affirmed Deadmaus in line with past consensus and decisions, I think the current is fine for now. The article has major issues with it; I suggest fixing the broken article before continuing the drama on the smallest aspect... the title. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The title is NOT a "small aspect"! The title of an article plays an extremely important role in the article and the title has already been causing massive confusion. We need to move this article to it's previous stable title in order to stop the confusion. Confused editors cannot fix an article so therefore we need to get this article to it's policy and consensus supported title as the first step of fixing the article! PantherLeapord (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Nice strawman argument; too bad it is dishonest and untrue. You can start by fixing the lack of citations, missing content and the train-wreck that is currently the discography section. None of the issues require "your preferred title" to begin working on it. I'd be more apt to listen to you if you would contribute to the article and attempt to understand TM and other people's arguments and past consensus that spread across numerous articles. Fixing content, however, is not dependent on the title. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I stopped reading at the word "Strawman". You know as well as I do that the argument for the proper title is perfectly valid! PantherLeapord (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I left a message on the closer's Talk asking for the page to be moved back to Deadmau5, since the closing comments stated that there was consensus for that move. If he/she declines, I don't know if a WP:MRV would be warranted, so I'd expect another WP:RM. —Frungi (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It'd be more apt to put the matter to the test with a RFC on the actual subject of this and apply it to here.. which will prevent 2-3 more RMs. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
So basically instead of waiting seven days for a move request to validate the consensus for Deadmau5 you want us to wait seven MONTHS for an RFC to do the same? It sounds like you just want to keep this article at this impossible and unsupported (by both policy AND consensus!) title for as long as possible! PantherLeapord (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I also couldn't help but notice that you are one of the people against Deadmau5. Trying to get your way by forcing longer bureaucracy isn't going to work! PantherLeapord (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Stop being dramatic. It is becoming very rude and your snide remarks; false as well, are becoming increasingly annoying. We have numerous pages which deal with this issue; the proper way to resolve a dispute of a contentious nature is to get to the heart of the matter and not throw as much disruptive chaff and intend on drowning editors out and abusing the process. We've had two closers weigh in on the maus issue and this was a different one. Considering leet and Tech Nine it is completely fair to suggest that an RFC on the matter is the correct option. Besides... if that RFC affirms, then this would have to be moved back following yet another RM. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The only reason you want an RfC is to keep the article here against both policy and consensus for longer! PantherLeapord (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request: Deadmau5 split up again.

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

He just announced via Facebook that he and Kat von D had split up again, because their relationship wasn't working out. Source: https://www.facebook.com/deadmau5?fref=ts . Can someone please edit the article in the "life" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarianThePC7 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

https://www.facebook.com/deadmau5/posts/10151477294066806 Helicopter Llama 16:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I just added the information with a reliable source to boot. STATic message me! 16:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Since when is the 5 not pronounced?

Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion

The main argument against using "deadmau5" is the fact the the 5 is not pronounced. But, as a person who has followed Deadmau5 for a long time, I can safely say this is simply not true. I know individuals have no right to contribute to their own articles, but Joel (deadmau5) has called himself "Dead mau five" on a large number of occasions: he has used the name in his online livestreams, and has even told fans that is how the name is pronounced (see his twitter here). You may argue that that is a joke or an unreliable source, but how are any of the sources provided for "deadmaus" any different? They are, in fact, "worse" as that variation has never been used officially, nor are there any sources that say that the name is exclusively pronounced that way. Furthermore, as far as official pronounciation goes, Joel has said he actually doesn't care and it can be pronouced either way. Considering this fact, along with the fact that "Deadmau5" is clearly the more widely used name, the only basis for keeping the article at "deadmaus" is "there's no official sources that call it that or even say it's exclusively pronouced like that, but it can be pronounced "deadmaus" so that's what the article's being called". And to me, that's just plain silly. With this added evidence, if someone can give me a reason why this article should still stay at "deadmaus", I'll gladly hear them out. Nb07wiki (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've pointed it out before, but in U-J3RK5, "the five is silent".....and people who know about the band, now long defunct, know how to pronounce it. People who've never seen "Featherstonehaugh" or "St. John Smith" don't know how to pronounce them either, until told (FAN-shaw and Sinjinsmith).Skookum1 (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Basically, the point I'm trying to make is this: the opposition to the 5 is because of a stylistic issue. If it was pronounced, there would be no reason to not have it in the article title. But the fact is: it can be pronounced that way. This leaves very little reason to not have "deadmau5" as the title, as the 5 is actually not stylistic (the main argument being made), it is a functional character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nb07wiki (talk • contribs) 08:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a big difference between can and is. Just because the 5 in his name could be hypothetically be pronounced as five does mean that the name is actually pronounced that way. If that was the rule we would need to keep virtually every stylization. There may be good reasons to include the 5 but this is not one of them,--174.93.171.179 (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
You're implying there's a large number of hypothetical pronounciations. There's not. There's two, "official", sourced pronounciations: "dead mouse" and "dead mau five". It is pronounced one way or the other. Hence, by keeping the name at "deadmaus", not only are we creating an invented name with no grounds in policy, but we lose one of the official forms of pronunciation for no reason. All things considered, "deadmaus" is not an acceptable substitute for "deadmau5"; the 5 is not a stylisation. The 5 is not just "hypothetically pronounced", it is pronounced. Nb07wiki (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Even if the "5" was pronounced, it wouldn't necessarily make the advocates of "deadmau5" happy. Ordinary English formatting includes separating numbers from letters with a space character, so we would be arguing about whether the title should be "Deadmau 5" or "Deadmau five" or "Deadmau Five" or "Dead mau 5" or "Dead Mao 5" or ... —BarrelProof (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's a non-issue with no grounds according to any policy. Why do pages such as Shing02, Prime95 and many more exist with their current names? Any of those names you suggested are invented and are not supported by any policy. Nb07wiki (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I guess you're right about that. Omitting spaces between words and numbers seems relatively widely tolerated on Wikipedia (4Licensing Corporation, Net4Mobility, Tele2, Net2Phone, ...). —BarrelProof (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Erm… he said that the “5” has been pronounced that way, and by the artist himself. Let me reiterate: “Deadmau5” is pronounced as both /ˈdɛdmaʊs/ and /dɛdmaʊˈfaɪv/ by both Deadmau5 fans and Deadmau5 himself. (For some irrational reason, my own brain insists on pronouncing the “5” as an “F”, or occasionally a “TH”—but that’s a personal problem.) —Frungi (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

WHO CARES? seriously. Why does this matter, one iota? The word "pronunciation" does not appear in WP:AT. Things can be pronounced in a multitude of ways - even if spelled the same (see homograph/homonym/etc).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the reason pronunciation keeps on coming up is more to do with the fact that if the 5 is pronounced, it is not a stylisation, and hence cannot be replaced with an "s". The "stylisation" argument was the one used to begin this whole argument by Wetdogmeat, and as can be seen by the numerous points on this page (including this one), there appears to be little to no valid reason according to that argument to use "Deadmaus" over "Deadmau5". That being said, the argument you made above is one of the strongest so far made for "Deadmau5" (or any of the names proposed, for that matter). Nb07wiki (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Move back to deadmau5 The pronunciation issue really isn't an issue at all. There's acceptable pronunciations, albeit one basically considered "correct" (dead-mouse). I'd also like to point out that there's a band called [!!!] (generally pronounced "chk, chk, chk" but the page is still called "!!!." I'm not complaining at all about this because this page is 100% correct. Using the correct trademarked name of the artist instead of how others would perceive it to be correctly spelled in their own opinion. I would also assume that it follows the common name guideline since it's lasted so long without any issues. How this case is any different? Change it back, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.45.224.215 (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote below: while I imagine the opposing parties no longer care for any form of evidence regarding pronunciation, here is a tweet from deadmau5, the previous one I linked in fact, but with context this time; the context being deadmau5 telling a fan his name is pronounced "dead mow five". If this isn't evidence, I don't know what is. But of course, per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, this will be ignored. Nb07wiki (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested Move 4: Hopefully the last RM

Latest comment: 11 years ago208 comments35 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived 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: Move. While it's usually unhelpful to have another move discussion so soon after the previous one, this RM had a much wider participation and a decisive consensus to move back. The most convincing arguments are that "Deadmaus" isn't widely used outside of Wikipedia and that "Deadmau5" may not be a simple stylization issue (like replacing "S" with "$"). Even if it were, there's clear local consensus for this to be an exception to the typical practice. Cúchullain t/c 15:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


Deadmaus → Deadmau5 – Since apparently we need to fill out more forms to verify the consensus that we already reached... PantherLeapord (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Vote struck per instructions at WP:RM/CM. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
(as nominator, support is implied) Apteva (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy procedural close we discussed this at the beginning of the month, it survived MRV, this should not be relitigated again until the beginning of September (3mo period between flipflops). -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
LOL IPs making up random policies. Classic. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
XD, a user less than 1 year old knows every policy already. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
.... MidnightRequestLine (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Freeman? PantherLeapord (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Just move it back till the RFC on whether or not it is exempt. The continuing mess is a procedural mess. I can't do the move cause I am not an admin, but this disruption has gone on long enough. Continuous move requests after successful move and move review shows abuse of process. Requester also makes numerous bad-faith accusations and has tried to stifle editors patience and actions to result in a favorable result. The overzealous and rude nature of the nominator continues to refuse that consensus has come down on related stylization such as leet and Tech Nine which Deadmaus appears to not be exempt by the previous move and move review. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
    Did you SEE the remarks of the last close? CONSENSUS HAS CHANGED! PantherLeapord (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy close – Did I miss something? Did the ongoing arguers convince themselves they had won in spite of the review? Dicklyon (talk) 06:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
    • That is exactly what happened, and why I strenuously objected PantherLeopard's attempt to move this via RMTR [1]. He's trying to endrun this move request at WP:RFPP. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry? To quote the admin who posted above not longer than 24 hours ago: "It is also clear that there is a fairly good consensus to move the article back to Deadmau5 and therefore another RM should be started in order to discuss that". No one's "convincing" themselves of anything, this is a fair discussion that was started at suggestion of an admin. I fail to see what the issue is here. Nb07wiki (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I apparently did something to piss off ChrisGualtieri and now them and this IP are going after me... PantherLeapord (talk) 10:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I see. An admin made on a comment in a silly RM not about this title, and this is how we're supposed to find or judge consensus? Weird. Dicklyon (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, that is exactly what happened. Regardless of how the previous "silly" RM was closed, they saw that the consensus was for "Deadmau5" and they stated that the issue need to be resolved in a separate discussion. And this is how we're supposed to find consensus, in a discussion, there's not really another way to do it. I still fail to see the point you're trying to make. Nb07wiki (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I am actually surprised to see that the closing admin did not simply make the move, as they indicated that "there is a fairly good consensus to move the article back to Deadmau5". The purpose of this is to affirm that consensus, but it is really unnecessary. Apteva (talk) 06:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, how many processes do we need to go through?? If the admin closing the last discussion finds that there's "a consensus to move back to deadmau5" why not just do it? - filelakesh03 (t / c) 07:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Deadmau5 is clearly his chosen name and common name - he simply isn't known as Deadmaus, and Wikipedia should not invent names for people that are not widely used in real life just to satisfy some pedantic interpretation of "policy". I know another RM might seem like more bureaucracy after the apparent consensus in the previous RM, but an RM can't really be closed with a move that was not actually the target of the RM. And objections that due process was followed and we need to wait 3 months for another RM? Well, we're not supposed to be process-slaves here and there did seem to be a clear consensus above, and that's when a little bit of IAR can help. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per above arguments, etc, etc. The current article title is not only unsuitable, again per the discussion above, the lede of this article is providing misinformation, and I'm fairly sure no policy supports that. Yes, I know we are changing the title back, but that is no good reason to oppose this close; as stated above, new arguments have come to light and the overwhelming consensus is now for the change, but regardless, let the final decision rest with the admins. Also WP:GOODFAITH, the consensus is obviously not just "fanboys" as previously stated. Nb07wiki (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Also see my arguments here. Nb07wiki (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't clear. It should just be moved to Deadmau5 as I pointed out above. The fourth move request is just disruptive. I pointed out that the current and real effort to deal with this matter is an RFC on the general principal until then. I'm ammending it to make it more clear. No one deals with leet, Tech Nine or the other moves which mirror this; including Kesha, but this disruptive and process abuse is a waste of time and effort. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yes, I was very tempted just to move it back to Deadmau5 given the consensus; but I was just a little wary that a move request to move X to Y should not result in the page being moved to Z. Hence my comment that this RM should now proceed. Black Kite (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I don't understand why this is even an issue. That's how the artist is universally known, and that's how we call them, period. Same problem at 30 Seconds to Mars. This is one of those instances where if a guideline is somehow preventing a move to the correct title, it should be ignored. These are the kinds of things that make us look like a petty bureaucracy. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, leave at Deadmaus. 1) This is not an issue of spelling and therefore not an issue of naming. It is an issue of style (these concepts have mostly been confused and these distinctions ignored in the above discussions). "Deadmaus" and "Deadmau5" are the same name, spelled the same, pronounced the same, with the same meaning (ie: they are the exact same word, like "Eminem" and "EMINƎM"), styled differently. 2) WP:AT (and therefore WP:UCN) defers to MOS:TM on questions of style, and MOS:TM makes no mention of choosing the most popular style (which is, of course, "Deadmau5", no question); MOS:TM states, to the contrary, that we should choose from among all the styles in use and opt for the one that most closely resembles standard English. That style is "Deadmaus". Given point #1, that WP:UCN doesn't apply to decorative characters (like a 5 that's really an S, or a triangle that's really an A, or a backwards E that's really just a normal E), and given point #2, that MOS:TM doesn't encourage using the most popular style, I still think Deadmaus is the most appropriate (legible, encyclopedic, stylistically consistent) title for this article. Wetdogmeat (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
    Lengthy discussion moved to Discussion subsection
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME, quality of sources using each name, and the lack of policy support for the current name. —Frungi (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Looks like I forgot to exercise my right to vote discuss. Anyway, I think that many users were unaware of the first move until it actually happened, and as far as I know, there was no template message on the article itself, so it seems like some sort of shady, under-the-cover operation. I was one of the few who voiced mild disapproval at the beginning, and, based on the backlash that the original move has received, there is nothing really wrong with "Deadmau5". As for the stylizing bit, not capitalizing "Deadmau5" is a pure stylization by what I think are everyone's standards, but the "5" should be part of COMMONNAME or whatever. On a more personal note, I'm sorry if my argument isn't on point at all, I just got back from a 4-mile run to learn that one of my classmates just died in a huge car crash on the interstate. Things are pretty rough Helicopter Llama 19:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per policy issues. And those who disagree due to "procedure", you are violating a pillar of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Ultra Venia (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously. Why did we open another one? The one I requested is still open, no? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as per above arguments. No reason to have it at Deadmaus, since it is not a word (as Midnight pointed out countless times), nor is it the artist's correct name. The artists name is, and has always been Deadmau5, and even though this is a stylization issue, it makes no sense to invent a word as maladroit as "Deadmaus", based on a few rogue and unnotable sources. Might as well make the title "Dead mouse" according to this logic. WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:COMMONNAME should be enough. Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad 21:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Support We've already made plenty of great arguments on this matter and it's a bit tiresome to have to continuously argue a point, but for old times sake. The legal and properly trademarked NAME (not logo) is Deadmau5 and it should be appropriately named as such. We shouldn't go with typos from rouge sources and should instead focus on actual reliable sources, as well as obvious ones (such as the official artist website). I'm pretty happy and relieved that hopefully this will be final time we have to go though this and the name will get changed back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.45.224.215 (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The last sentence has been substantiated ad nauseum. Maybe engage the existing argument instead of filibustering? Wetdogmeat (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The fact that WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply to stylizations is well-established. Since WP:COMMONNAME only applies to article titles, if we were to avoid following our anti-stylization guidelines in titles but continue to do so in prose, we would end up with absurd results (such as an article titled "deadmau5" that refers to "Deadmaus" in prose). Therefore, it's obvious that anti-stylization guidelines must also apply to article titles, overriding WP:COMMONNAME. Furthermore, WP:COMMONNAME says nothing about stylizations; it refers to what a title should be, not how that title should be rendered. Powers T 15:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • STRONG Support... one of the major arguments that was raised in previous RMs was that the name is pronounced "dead mouse", thus making the 5 a pure stylization... but as has now been pointed out, many fans and the artist himself sometimes pronounces it... "Dead Mau Five". And that means that the 5 is not just a stylized "s", but a distinct character on its own. Combine this with the COMMONNAME argument (the fact that Deadmau5 is overwhelmingly more commonly used, and favored not just in raw numbers of sources - but also favored when we take into consideration the quality of sources) and this should be an open and shut case. The arguments for Deadmaus have all been refuted. Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
"The arguments for Deadmaus have all been refuted." Only in the imaginations of those who haven't even tried to refute them, and just continue begging the question by citing WP:UCN. And the claim that "dead mau five" is an accepted alternate pronunciation has NOT been substantiated at all. An out-of-context tweet and a sarcastic joke on Reddit don't supercede the artist's official bio and the numerous sources that reproduce the pronunciation key "dead mouse". If it can be seriously shown that "dead mau five" is an accepted alternate pronunciation (and not a widespread mispronunciation and faux pas on a par with dropping the numeral), then I would concede that the numeral in the title is not purely decorative, and not potentially confusing, and that therefore "Deadmau5" is the most appropriate title for this article. Wetdogmeat (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
If fans of Deadmau5 claim that “Deadmau-5” is an acceptable pronunciation, I for one am inclined to believe them, and only demand sources if they insist on adding the claim to the article itself. And I have no doubt whatsoever that the pronunciation “Deadmau-5” is generally more acceptable than the spelling/style/presentation/character sequence “Deadmaus”. —Frungi (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I too am inclined to believe fans of Deadmaus (also, google it). Even the Reddit discussion which supposedly supports this alternative pronunciation in fact debunks it, simply by virtue of the fact that he is asked the question by a fan in the first place. And yes, I'm sure the pronunciation "dead mau five" is more accepted among fans than the style "Deadmaus", but that's irrelevant, since the former is a matter of fact (either it is or it isn't an accepted alternative) and the latter is a matter of style (and we have our own MOS). Wetdogmeat (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

RM4 Discussion

Any additional comments:

To User:Wetdogmeat's opposing argument: If it were simply a question of style, then major publications would abide by their substantial style guides. Since that doesn't lead them to avoid this name, I can only assume that professional editors, who know what they're doing and get paid a good amount of money to make these decisions, have determined that it's not simply a question of style, and that the name is properly spelled with a "5". Maybe this is an appeal to authority, but I think it's a valid one. —Frungi (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

1) Yes, that's an appeal to authority, and it's not a strong one, even on its own terms, since the claim that these editors believe it's an issue of spelling and not merely of style is nothing but an inference from their reproduction of the trademark style. Unless you have a quote from one of those sources stating that they do believe the concept of spelling applies to numbers, then you're just speculating. I could just as easily speculate that "Deadmau5" is considered an acceptable exception from their own style guidelines (entirely possible), or that they haven't really thought about the conceptual distinction that I've been pointing out between spelling and style (also possible), or that if they have, the reproduction of the popular trademark in this case has been considered to be more important for their editorial purposes than strict adherance their house style. 2) Whatever the case, the concept of spelling doesn't apply to numbers, or triangles, or monetary symbols, or backwards versions of normal letters, or emoticons, or whatever other decorations people sometimes like to use in their stage names. It only applies to letters and diacritics. The concept has a particular meaningful application in ordinary language that does not apply to numbers (we don't 'spell' multiple-digit numbers with single-digit numbers, for instance), and the way this artist's name is styled (or 'spelled') in various newspapers and databases is hardly sufficient grounds to accept an alternative meaning (or, if it is--which of course it isn't--it certainly hasn't turned up in any dictionaries yet). Wetdogmeat (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Re 2: We're talking about a numeral, not a number. But if you meant numerals, then: According to whom? There is no central authority for the English language. Even if minor sources used such a spelling, there is no case for spelling Warehouse 13 as "Warehouse Thirteen", or (more relevantly) 4Kids as either "Four Kids" or "For Kids". Whatever you wish to call it, some names are simply "spelled" with numerals. This is one of them, and we'd be misleading our readers by claiming otherwise. —Frungi (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
1) Yes, a numeral. Sorry, I've been using the words 'numeral' and 'number' interchangeably because, outside of mathematics, that's how they're used. If it causes confusion (which of course it doesn't; you're just being pedantic), I'll stick to 'numeral'. Who says the concept of spelling doesn't apply to numerals? Well, we do, for starters. And that's probably on the basis of that fact that Websters does, Oxford does, Collins does, etc, etc, etc. 2) Now, you're conflating the two points, which are logically separate. We have to determine whether this is a question of spelling (and therefore of naming) or of styling (and therefore not of naming) before we can decide whether WP:UCN applies, and, if it does, begin evaluating the quantity and quality of sources, or, if it doesn't, discard the policy as irrelevent. 3) It is flabbergasting to me that people do not understand why examples like Perri 6, Hal 9000, Henry VIII and now Warehouse 13 and 4Kids are not analogous to names like Deadmau5, Tech N9ne and Se7en. In the former cases there are no unpronounced decorative characters. And yes, whether you write the name "Warehouse 13" or "Warehouse Thirteen" is absolutely a matter of style, and not of spelling. The word "thirteen" is spelled "T-H-I-R-T-E-E-N", not "1-3", because the concept of spelling does not apply to numerals. The use of the numeral in the name is a matter of style (though not, I stress again, of unpronounced decorative characters). Wetdogmeat (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
By my understanding of the words, a number has semantic meaning, and a numeral is just a character. Sorry for any confusion. Anyway, I and others call it "spelling", but whatever word you wish to apply to the use of non-numeric numerals in names (not standard words) such as the "4" in "4Kids" (which I believe stands in for the word "for", but that's not relevant), that's the word that applies to the use of "5" in "Deadmau5". To your point 3, the numeral in this name is not "unpronounced" unless you read the name as "Deadmau", which I don't believe anyone does. —Frungi (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Alright, in that case, please see my reductio ad absurdum argument below, in the comment on spelling, and tell me the cocaine, the money, the knife and the gun in "American Desperado" are also pronounced when the name is read from the book cover. The numeral in "Deadmau5" is not pronounced, any more than the triangles in "Balam Acab" or the images in "American Desperado"; the characters they are standing in for--because they sort of look like them--are pronounced. They are stylisations of other characters, and it is these characters that are pronounced. Wetdogmeat (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Show me one other source, reliable or not, that styles "American Desperado" that way and I will consider this argument. If, somehow, this style was in common use, you may have a point; but it's not, and it never would be. —Frungi (talk) 05:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
That's irrelevant. You're conflating different arguments again. This is about whether these kinds of characters are pronounced. Whether the characters are used in one source or a million is irrelevant. When read from the book's cover, are they pronounced? Wetdogmeat (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
We aren't here to argue individual points. We're here to argue a specific case, which has multiple factors including the ones that each of us is focusing on. —Frungi (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
As you know, of course, arguments are normally made up of points, some of which logically follow from the others. So if point B follows from point A, then point A has to be established before point B can be. You're refusing the question because the only sane answer involves conceding something you don't want to concede due to the implications it would have for your overall argument. Wetdogmeat (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Wrong; rather, it's that the question is irrelevant. I say something is the case for this name, and you conclude that it must therefore be the case for all names, which is foolish. But if you insist, I'll match your reductio ad absurdum with one of my own: If the COMMONNAME for American Desperado was in fact spelled out in the way you propose in a majority of mainstream reliable sources, would COMMONNAME then be invalid? —Frungi (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
So, your argument is that the concept of spelling applies only to letters, except when it doesn't (as in the case of Joel Zimmerman's stage name). Is that what you're suggesting? Despite sources such as Websters, Oxford and Collins defining 'spelling' as applicable only to the use of letters to form a word, in the case of Joel Zimmerman, there is another operable meaning? In that case, my question is perfectly relevant: if the concept of spelling sometimes allows for its application to numerals, then does it also sometimes allow for its application to pictures of guns and knives? Dollar symbols? Triangles? Smiley faces? And in answer to your question, yes, of course, for exactly the same reason: WP:UCN doesn't apply to style, only to spelling. I don't even see how that's a reductio ad absurdum. And now that I've answered your question, maybe you could answer mine: is the name of the book, as it appears on the cover, spelled with images (gun, knife, money, cocaine)? Wetdogmeat (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
You’re silly. How do you “spell” the name of 4Kids? As I’ve said before, if you prefer to use a different term to describe the composition of characters to form a word or name, feel free to substitute it. To your question, if mainstream reliable sources predominantly [word of your choosing]ed the name of that book using those symbols, somehow, then yes, I think a case could be made that the name is properly [word of your choosing]ed that way. That would never happen with that book’s name, but it can happen with other names, such as the one under discussion here. —Frungi (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, a better example: How do you spell the word “don’t”? The apostrophe is not a letter. Or “x-ray”? The hyphen is not a letter. Are these words unspellable? Are they properly spelled sans punctuation? And back to “4Kids”: the “4” is not a letter, but there’s no other way to spell the name. —Frungi (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
1) The word "4Kids" is spelled "F-O-U-R-K-I-D-S". This is why films such as 2001: A Space Odyssey and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea are alphabetised under T in reputable film guides, per the Chicago Manual of Style: "Isolated entries beginning with numerals are alphabetized as though spelled out. (1984 (Orwell) [alphabetized as nineteen eighty-four]; 125th Street [alphabetized as one hundred twenty-fifth street]; 10 Downing Street [alphabetized as ten downing street])." Meaning, the names are traditionally not spelled out, and instead styled with numerals. It's funny that you're implying that I'm the one using a peculiar meaning of 'spelling', when I'm using the word in accordance with Websters, Oxford, Collins, and the Chicago MOS, and you're using it in such a bizarrely wide sense that it can in principle apply to literally any kind of graphic. "Hi, my name's John, but I like to spell my name with pictures of fruit: it's spelled (apple)-(banana)-(pineapple)-(pear), and pronounced 'John'." 2) Punctuation and spelling are different concepts. Definitions upon request. 3) You're reintroducing these bad analogies because you're ignoring the second part of the argument. The first part of the argument is that "Deadmau5" and "Deadmaus" are the same name styled differently, and that therefore WP:UCN does not apply. The second part of the argument, which you must be forgetting if you're bringing up "4Kids" again, is that the MOS does not mitigate against style per se, but it does mitigate against purely decorative characters. The trademark style under scrutiny here contains a purely decorative character. This character happens to be a numeral, which is what is confusing the people who keep bringing up examples like "4Kids", "Hal 9000", "Henry VIII" and "Perri 6", but it is (for the hundreth time) no different from the dollar sign in "Ke$ha", the backwards E in "EMINƎM", the triangles in "BΔLΔM ΔCΔB" or the pictures of crime-related paraphernalia in "A-M-(cocaine)-R-I-(knife)-A-N_D-E-(money)-P-E-(gun)-A-D-O". It is a letter S styled as another character that looks a bit like an S. You haven't shown how there is ANY conceptual distinction between the use of the 5 in "Deadmau5" and the use of these other decorations in these examples (frequency of reproduction in sources is not a conceptual distinction). Your argument has involved the invention of a new unprecedentedly elastic definition of 'spelling' that contradicts the definition in all major dictionaries, and the claim that the reproduction of the trademark style by editors of quality sources implies the belief on their part that this style is in fact a distinct spelling, which is nothing but your own inference and speculation. These claims are both clear examples of original research. Wetdogmeat (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Please make an effort to format long posts into paragraphs or list items for better readability. Thank you. —Frungi (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I find it very hard to read your arguments without thinking TL;DR. Insulam Simia (talk/contribs) 19:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  1. Since I believe the “4” stands in for the word “for”, a more accurate spelling would be “For Kids”. But I’m pretty sure any attempt to spell the name as either would be universally rejected. In fact, by narrow definition, a name is not a word at all and the concept of spelling does not apply. So once again, if you object to my choice of word to describe the sequence of characters used to represent a name, feel free to suggest an alternative.
  2. You neglected to answer the question: How do you spell the word “don’t”?
  3. I think “4Kids” is more analogous to “Deadmau5” than names styled with nonsense characters that do not exist on most (if any) Roman-alphabet keyboards. Neither numeral necessarily indicates a number, but they’re both universally [insert alternative word]ed with the numeral.
  4. Assuming that you’re right to label it “style”: You believe that COMMONNAME cannot apply because that section of policy doesn’t explicitly state that it applies to style. I believe it may because it doesn’t explicitly state that it does not. This is a difference of opinion in interpreting policy, and in this particular case, the consensus is to apply it. If you wish to discuss a change at WT:AT, I will be happy to argue my point there.
  5. Regardless of anything else, “Deadmau5” is by far the most common usage in reliable sources, so we should use it per WP:TITLETM. If you wish to debate the wording and meaning of that section, I’d be happy to take that up at the appropriate Talk page as well. —Frungi (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  1. Whether the numeral in "4Kids" is intended as a pun or not is irrelevant (any written homonym requires the commitment to one spelling or the other if the two words are spelled differently), the number 4 is spelled F-O-U-R. And where do you get the idea that a name isn't a word? You're really fighting an uphill battle against Webster, Oxford and Collins in your efforts to bend the policy so that it says what you want it to say. The facts are: 1) spelling is the formation of words using letters; 2) a name is a word that designates a person or thing. — Wetdogmeat (22:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)
    Sorry, I’ll clarify: The normal rules of English do not necessarily apply to names. This is why I made a distinction between names and common words that appear in a dictionary. For instance, names can be spelled (I’m continuing to use this word since you still haven’t suggested an alternative, even though you won’t stop objecting to this use) with numerals, while words are not. —Frungi (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    No, names cannot be 'spelled' with numerals. Do you mean names like "4Kids"? We've been through this already. "4" is spelled "F-O-U-R". Whether it is written as a numeral or "spelled out" (Chicago MOS) is a matter of style. (And it's not up to me to make up new words, I'm not the one trying to rewrite the dictionary). Wetdogmeat (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    It is expressed in a string of characters as “4Kids”, and I use the word “spelled” in place of “expressed in a string of characters”. Either accept that and parse my posts with that in mind, or suggest a word that better fits the definition. If there isn’t one (if you have to “make up new words”), then it’s “spelled”. —Frungi (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    How about... 'styled'? But we wouldn't want to use that one would we! Wetdogmeat (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. Right, I thought my dismissal of the question implied my answer: the word is spelled D-O-N-T, and is properly punctuated with an apostrophe. As I said, punctuation and spelling are different concepts. There is no punctuation issue with this title, so your bringing it up just seems like clutching at straws.
  3. It is not analogous, because the numeral in "4Kids" does designate a number and the numeral in "Deadmau5" designates a letter (like the numeral in "Se7en"). Whether the number 4 is intended as a pun is both irrelevant and speculative (if so, they must've dropped it when they changed their name). You have not even attempted to demonstrate a conceptual distinction between the use of numerals to designate letters and the use of monetary symbols, geometric shapes, emoticons, or actual pictures of drug-related paraphernalia to do the same. In fact, you have made a roundabout concession that there is no such distinction, when you argued that, yes, if the knife and gun and money and drugs in the stylised rendering of "American Desperado" were reproduced by enough reliable sources this would mean the title were properly spelled with those images. But this is begging the question. That the concept of spelling applies only to letters is the point of contention, and this is a matter of definition, not of reproduction in sources (which is meaningless, because the claim that the reproduction of the trademark style by editors of quality sources implies the belief on their part that this style is in fact a distinct spelling is nothing but your own inference and speculation). — Wetdogmeat (22:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)
    I have more to say on the subject of the definition of “spelling”, but I don’t believe this is an appropriate venue for it, especially since this whole tangent is irrelevant—it doesn’t matter if it’s grammatically correct to say that a name is “spelled” with a numeral. It is the standard representation of the name, regardless of how you wish to describe the process of putting those characters together. —Frungi (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    After all this time do you seriously still not understand the significance of this point? It is not a tangent, it is the logical crux of the entire disagreement. If the concept of spelling only applies to letters, then "Deadmau5" and "Deadmaus" are the same word, they are the same name, and therefore the policy WP:UCN does not distinguish between them - they BOTH satisfy it as the COMMONNAME. Wetdogmeat (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    Please see below. —Frungi (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  4. I've responded to this point below. What the policy doesn't say is literally everything else imaginable. You must demonstrate that the policy could apply to style by appealling to what the policy actually does say. This is what you've been attempting to do with your definition-dodging.
  5. WP:TITLETM defers to MOS:TM, which is where the directly analogous canonical example of "Seven/Se7en" appears. Wetdogmeat (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    “Directly analogous”? Is “Se7en” by far the most widespread usage in reliable sources? No and no. —Frungi (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    Logically analogous. How many times have I explained this? It is logically analogous in a way that the stylisation of the word "four" as the numeral "4" in the name "4Kids" is not. Sources have absolutely nothing to do with it. (Seriously, I have explained this many, many times. I have referred to "Se7en" as directly analogous in this exact same context, where sources are irrelevant, and someone has responded "but so many sources!", and I've had to clarify my meaning for them. Probably two dozen times at this point.)Wetdogmeat (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    Okay, but I choose not to ignore the other factors relevant to this particular case, because I’m not at WT:AT debating the wording of COMMONNAME. We’re discussing moving an article from a longstanding title with a numeral in it supported by the vast majority of reliable sources, to a barely-supported title that’s arguably a typo of the name. A case like that would be “directly analogous” to a case like this. I’m not aware of any such moves that have been successful. Are you? —Frungi (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    You're here, debating the application of COMMONNAME, which necessarily involves debating the content of the policy. You want to move the article in accordance with the policy; I'm arguing that policy doesn't apply. What else could it become but an argument over the wording of the policy? As for previous moves, well, this one was successfully moved (you want it moved back), as was the directly analogous Tech N9ne. Moves in a similar spirit would be RZA and GZA, which were moved from their ALLCAPS styles despite those being the vast majority in sources. Also Sunn O))), which is pronounced "sun" but 'spelled' with a little picture of the sun beside it, was moved to Sunn (band), despite the very widespread reproduction of the trademark in sources, and the correspondingly widespread mispronunciation of the name as "sun o". Wetdogmeat (talk) 04:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    Please see below. —Frungi (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
It is very concerning to hear all this - gives me the feeling we will be dealing with this again in the near future. Please in the future before doing what you think is best - research the topic at hand first.... educate yourself - don't just follow a guide blindly.Moxy (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Have you got anything relevant to say? Wetdogmeat (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
You seem not to get my point if you believe its a personal attack - its serious advice. After all this I am sure you understand that the majority believe the policy common name is more important then the guide on trademarks. So best not to simply flyby articles and change titles (ask for a move) without doing some research for the common name used. Sometimes you will come to discover that a stylized name is more common and other times a non stylized name is just as common. Thus asking you to do some simply research before a name change after what we have a learned here.Moxy (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say it was a 'personal attack', but the substance of WP:NPA is "comment on content, not contributors". Your entire comment was directed at me and contributed nothing to the argument, in fact you've simply begged the question again, like so many other editors who have 'flown by' this RM and posted some variation of "Support per COMMONNAME". You seem to not understand the substance of my argument. At no point, prior or subsequent to the initial RM, have I claimed or believed that "Deadmaus" is the more common style in sources; my point has been that "Deadmau5" and "Deadmaus" are the same name styled differently, and that therefore WP:UCN does not apply, because WP:UCN does not apply to style. What information have I overlooked? On what in particular should I have 'educated myself'? Wetdogmeat (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
RE: Wetdogmeat We are not talking about replacing the complete text of the Magna Carta with various depections of waterfowl! We are talking about taking ONE letter and replacing it with a digit that appears on every standard english keyboard! Is that so hard to understand! (edit conflict)Also: Accusing others of personal attacks when you are using ad hominem strawman nonsensical arguments retreading the same cherry picked points without listening to the counterpoints only makes you look like an ass! PantherLeapord (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Are you going for the record number of blatant fabrications in a single post? Please demonstrate where I have committed these alleged fallacies. And it's high time you substatiated the claim that I've been ignoring people's points, since this is the third time you've made the accusation. Perhaps your time would be better spent putting together a policy-based argument than arbitrarily stringing together unsubstantiated allegations and posting bizarre plea bargains on my talk page. Just a suggestion. Wetdogmeat (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
You want proof? It's on this very page! Just scroll up or down! I won't make any more posts on this as clearly you are suffering from selective reading. Do NOT make ANY more posts on this page until you understand that people are getting fed up with your ignorance! PantherLeapord (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I asked for examples. It would stand to reason that, if I was committing these fallacies, I wouldn't be able to see them unless they were pointed out to me. So show me where I've committed them. It's easy to make allegations when you have no intention of backing them up, but it's also no more meaningful than name-calling. Wetdogmeat (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Alright then. Since the first move request you used the argument that it is not a spelling but a style problem. This has been disproven already " If it were simply a question of style, then major publications would abide by their substantial style guides. Since that doesn't lead them to avoid this name, I can only assume that professional editors, who know what they're doing and get paid a good amount of money to make these decisions, have determined that it's not simply a question of style, and that the name is properly spelled with a "5"". You also have still not managed to "Show me one other source, reliable or not, that styles "American Desperado" that way and I will consider this argument.". It's funny that you demand proof from me when you refuse to provide it yourself! It has also been pointed out that "I say something is the case for this name, and you conclude that it must therefore be the case for all names, which is foolish.".
"Eminem is the WP:COMMONNAME for that artist, Deadmau5 is the COMMONNAME for this artist. So that doesn't work. 2: MOS is a guideline, not policy. COMMONNAME is part of the policy WP:Article titles, so it trumps the MOS." - You DO understand what a guideline is right? You do also understand that Wikipedia is not designed to strictly follow rules right?

"Sources have been provided that the artist and his fans also refer to him as "Dead mow 5" making the 5 not an "S" in all cases. So your arguement is invalid. It is one thing if it is a stylization used on and off but if it is a trademarked name used in every reliable source and every piece of music he has released, that should be the title."

  1. "Deadmau5" is not the same as "Deadmaus". The artist has no releases under that name, the name is not trademarked at all and all reliable sources (as well as followers of the artist) do not use that name. Consensus seems to agree on this too. Pronunciation is also relevant; I will touch on the 5 being a "stylisation" shortly.
  2. "Deadmaus" is an invented name. It can be seen that most people agree but for those who don't, I direct you to the following note from WP:TITLECHANGES: "While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names." The conflicting point of view in this case is the "5". As "Deadmau5" is not the same as "Deadmaus", "Deadmaus" is not a suitable name. The only other name that would be suitable for this article is "Joel Zimmerman" but the move for that was closed as consensus is for "Deadmau5".
  3. "Deadmaus" is clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME. It is not the same as "Deadmau5", see point 1. Hence, the current name violates policy.
  4. "Deadmau5" is not a stylisation of "Deadmaus". For those who would like to invoke the Ke$ha argument, or similar arguments, here are the two reasons why this situation is different:

- "Deadmaus", unlike "Kesha" or "Eminem", is not used anywhere. There are no reliable sources that use the name. It is not just a stylisation, it is the trademarked logo and name that has been used everywhere; in print, media, by fans, basically everywhere. The only places that use "Deadmaus" seem to have used the name mistakenly. - The 5 in Deadmau5 can be pronounced (unlike the $ is Ke$ha), according to the artist. I've already covered this above, see here. Because of this, it's obvious that "Deadmau5" is not a stylisation. The artist Shing02's name can be pronounced "Shing Oh Two" or "Shing Zero Two". Despite the artist's real name being Shingo, the article resides as Shing02 as it should, not Shingo2. Because it would be silly to have it any other way, right? The point I'm trying to make, is that for titles with two different pronunciations, one of which involves a numeral, it is senseless to remove the numeral for style purposes with the excuse being "it satisfies one of the pronounciations". Not only is a name being invented, a pronounciation (an official one is this case) is being lost.

  1. The current title causes confusion. I mean, the fact that we have to have a FAQ on the talk page explaining why the article name is NOT Deadmau5 (with a very poor argument) just shows why this title is wrong. While it's not a valid point, I'd also like to point out the the two largest "Deadmau5 communities" on the net have caught on to this issue and is being ridiculed on those sites. Why? Because no one will come to this article by searching "Deadmaus". It is not informative, it is false, and it's going to result in a pointless redirect 100% of the time.
  2. The original move request was very poor. Not only was a clear consensus not reached (The split was 50/50 at the time, obviously different now), but the WP:MOS clauses cited for the moves were being violated themselves ("Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official," as long as this is a style already in use, rather than inventing a new one" and "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced [or] are included purely for decoration" [the 5 is both pronounced and used by all sources, hence is it not just for decoration]). The fact that the title was long stable at it's previous name and was only moved because, and please don't invoke WP:NPA or WP:AGF on me because I mean no harm, the user who started the move has recently been having similar discussions (a "policy crusade", if you will) on other long-standing pages such as Tech N9ne, and this well-established article was nothing special; it was just "thrown into the mix" without any consideration of the finer aspects of it's title. It should now be clear that "Deadmau5", unlike other articles, is quite a different situation per this discussion.

Consensus agrees with Deadmau5. Need I say more on this?

  1. WP:IAR. There may be some arcane aspect of policy that agrees with the change (although my point above show that I clearly doubt that) but even if there was one small policy that suggested a name change, is it worth all this? I think it's obvious that the name "Deadmau5" is for the greater good of Wikipedia, per all my reasons above. So why fight that? I think WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY really covers the point I'm trying to make here."
"Almost every user here has refuted your arguments. Several times over. And yet you still cling to your position like a limpet on a rock, and refuse to drop the stick, admit you're wrong (which consensus here clearly shows - even admins are supporting the move, don't forget) or, at the very least, you could just drop the stick and leave the discussion. At the end of the day, as I've said several times myself, COMMONNAME is policy, MOS is not. COMMONNAME trumps MOS. And as to a truly nonsensical argument - it's pretty simple really: you claim changing a character in a name doesn't change the name. That's absurd, and incorrect, as everyone has shown."
Is THAT enough proof that you are being disruptive here? PantherLeapord (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Haha, wow. I didn't ask you to regurgitate a series of other people's arguments while ignoring the fact that I've already responded to all of them (go back to where you copy-pasted them from and you'll be able to see my responses). I asked you to provide examples of the logical fallacies that you accused me of committing. You haven't provided a single example. You have, however, ironically, begged the question yourself several times in a single post (that is, that WP:UCN applies to this case), and the irony of your WP:IDHT accusation is almost literally too much to handle. I'm cringing on your behalf. (Also, you might want to fix the formatting there.) Wetdogmeat (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
You're begging the question with #1. The point is that WP:UCN doesn't apply, because "Deadmaus" and "Deadmau5" are the same name. It's a question of style, not spelling (ie: not naming). Wetdogmeat (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
No, it isn't. They are different names. I think pretty much everyone here save you and maybe a few others agrees that they are different names. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't care how many people disagree with me. Show me a reputable definition of 'spelling' that applies to numbers, or triangles, or emoticons. "John" and "J☺hn" are the same name. The difference is nothing but decoration - not meaning, not spelling, not pronunciation. Wetdogmeat (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't make them the same word. What if I think that J☺hn is the same word as Jahn, instead of John? Deadmau5 is not the same as Deadmaus. It's not the same as anything, because the number 5 does not translate to an s. It is standing in for "se" and the a in Deadmau5 is standing in for an o. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it does make them the same word: meaning, spelling, pronunciation - there is nothing else to a word. Your last statement is such utter nonsense that I don't even know where to begin correcting it. The word "Deadmaus" is not 'standing in' for the words "dead" and "mouse". It's a proper noun. You know the girls' name "June" is not 'standing in' for the name of the month of June, yes? Whatever the hell that would even mean. The issue is not that he spells his name in a distinct way, it's that he styles the S as a 5. Like Balam Acab styles the A's as triangles, or Kesha styles her S as a dollar sign, or Eminem styles one of his E's backwards. It is conceptually no different from these examples. The only practical difference is that triangles and backwards letters are unusual characters that don't appear on normal keyboards. Monetary symbols and numbers do, which is why "Deadmau5" and "Ke$ha" are routinely reproduced and "EMINƎM" and "BΔLΔM ΔCΔB" aren't. Wetdogmeat (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
See the above section. Sources have been provided that the artist and his fans also refer to him as "Dead mow 5" making the 5 not an "S" in all cases. So your arguement is invalid. It is one thing if it is a stylization used on and off but if it is a trademarked name used in every reliable source and every piece of music he has released, that should be the title. STATic message me! 21:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
An out-of-context tweet and a sarcastic remark on Reddit about not minding when the name is mispronounced do not supercede the artist's official biography on his own website. However, IF it can be shown that "dead mau five" is an accepted alternate pronunciation, and is not widely regarded as a mispronunciation, then my argument is indeed unfounded (not invalid), and I will retract it and support a move to Deadmau5. From googling, it would seem that pronouncing the name "dead mau five" is considered a faux pas on a par with styling the name without the numeral (you have fan pages like this for instance). Wetdogmeat (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, nobody except Dickylon agrees with you. Consensus theory of truth. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Haha, I can't believe this. You linked me to an article about a philosophical theory as though it's some policy. I am NOT about to debate epistemology with you, I am not that masochistic. Suffice it to say that if I stumbled into a meeting of the Flat Earth Society I would not leave persuaded that the Earth is flat simply because everyone there disagreed with me. (No disrespect to other editors; simply illustrating the fallacy.)Wetdogmeat (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, that article is not a policy, but WP:CONSENSUS is. If you look all the way at the bottom of the page, it mentions the other article about truth and consensus, which they are considering merging with the one I just linked to. For all intents and purposes, those are two peas in a pod, and they are linked to by wikipedia policies to support the foundation that wikipedia was built on. Wikipedia cannot take the word of a single editor to be the truth. So it tries to find the best course of action through consensus. And that consensus, in this case, favors mau5. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The fact that Wikipedia operates via consensus-based decision-making is not an implicit endorsement of the consensus theory of truth. The fact that you think it is is so funny. Wikipedia does not take a stand on millennia-old philosophical questions. Wetdogmeat (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

As my discussion is all over the place, here are the main reasons (and the policies stating them) why the article should be moved to Deadmau5:

  1. "Deadmau5" is not the same as "Deadmaus". The artist has no releases under that name, the name is not trademarked at all and all reliable sources (as well as followers of the artist) do not use that name. Consensus seems to agree on this too. Pronunciation is also relevant; I will touch on the 5 being a "stylisation" shortly.
  2. "Deadmaus" is an invented name. It can be seen that most people agree but for those who don't, I direct you to the following note from WP:TITLECHANGES: "While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names." The conflicting point of view in this case is the "5". As "Deadmau5" is not the same as "Deadmaus", "Deadmaus" is not a suitable name. The only other name that would be suitable for this article is "Joel Zimmerman" but the move for that was closed as consensus is for "Deadmau5".
  3. "Deadmaus" is clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME. It is not the same as "Deadmau5", see point 1. Hence, the current name violates policy.
  4. "Deadmau5" is not a stylisation of "Deadmaus". For those who would like to invoke the Ke$ha argument, or similar arguments, here are the two reasons why this situation is different:

    - "Deadmaus", unlike "Kesha" or "Eminem", is not used anywhere. There are no reliable sources that use the name. It is not just a stylisation, it is the trademarked logo and name that has been used everywhere; in print, media, by fans, basically everywhere. The only places that use "Deadmaus" seem to have used the name mistakenly.

    - The 5 in Deadmau5 can be pronounced (unlike the $ is Ke$ha), according to the artist. I've already covered this above, see here. Because of this, it's obvious that "Deadmau5" is not a stylisation. The artist Shing02's name can be pronounced "Shing Oh Two" or "Shing Zero Two". Despite the artist's real name being Shingo, the article resides as Shing02 as it should, not Shingo2. Because it would be silly to have it any other way, right? The point I'm trying to make, is that for titles with two different pronunciations, one of which involves a numeral, it is senseless to remove the numeral for style purposes with the excuse being "it satisfies one of the pronounciations". Not only is a name being invented, a pronounciation (an official one is this case) is being lost.

  5. The current title causes confusion. I mean, the fact that we have to have a FAQ on the talk page explaining why the article name is NOT Deadmau5 (with a very poor argument) just shows why this title is wrong. While it's not a valid point, I'd also like to point out the the two largest "Deadmau5 communities" on the net have caught on to this issue and is being ridiculed on those sites. Why? Because no one will come to this article by searching "Deadmaus". It is not informative, it is false, and it's going to result in a pointless redirect 100% of the time.
  6. The original move request was very poor. Not only was a clear consensus not reached (The split was 50/50 at the time, obviously different now), but the WP:MOS clauses cited for the moves were being violated themselves ("Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official," as long as this is a style already in use, rather than inventing a new one" and "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced [or] are included purely for decoration" [the 5 is both pronounced and used by all sources, hence is it not just for decoration]). The fact that the title was long stable at it's previous name and was only moved because, and please don't invoke WP:NPA or WP:AGF on me because I mean no harm, the user who started the move has recently been having similar discussions (a "policy crusade", if you will) on other long-standing pages such as Tech N9ne, and this well-established article was nothing special; it was just "thrown into the mix" without any consideration of the finer aspects of it's title. It should now be clear that "Deadmau5", unlike other articles, is quite a different situation per this discussion.
  7. Consensus agrees with Deadmau5. Need I say more on this?
  8. WP:IAR. There may be some arcane aspect of policy that agrees with the change (although my point above show that I clearly doubt that) but even if there was one small policy that suggested a name change, is it worth all this? I think it's obvious that the name "Deadmau5" is for the greater good of Wikipedia, per all my reasons above. So why fight that? I think WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY really covers the point I'm trying to make here.

I think this should clear up all the points that people have been trying to make. If I have forgetten something, please let me know. If you disagree with any of my points, I'd be happy to hear your reasoning. Nb07wiki (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Very, very, very well said. You covered everything I can think of. Thank you for taking the time to write all of that. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, one small thing - WP:MOSTM, the guideline that supposedly supports Deadmaus (I would argue that it doesn't, but...) is only a guideline. It is not a policy, unlike WP:COMMONNAME, which clearly supports Deadmau5. Also, at the top of WP:MOSTM, it says that occasional exceptions will apply and asks editors to please use common sense. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Reinforcing a claim made in Nb07wiki’s point 5, take a look at the Google search trends for “Deadmau5” vs “Deadmaus”. People do not search for “Deadmaus”. Also, searches for “Deadmou5” (spelled with an “O”, inarguably a typo) are about on par with “Deadmaus”, which I think is quite telling. —Frungi (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Disagree with much of the above summary by Nb07wiki and with some similar remarks that have made by others. Contrary to Nb07wiki's item #2, "Deadmaus" is not an invention of Wikipedia editors. This has been pointed out before, and it has been summarily ignored before by those pushing for the '5'. There are a number of examples that have been identified where reliable sources have used "Deadmaus". They are a small minority, but they exist, and people should stop saying they don't exist. This false assertion is redundantly stated again in items #1 ("all reliable sources ... do not use that name") and #4 ("There are no reliable sources that use the name"). I also disagree with the assertion that the use of the "5" is not stylization (item #4, semi-redundant with item #1). It is a '5' that is ordinarily pronounced as an 's', so it is rather obviously a stylization (as is the use of lowercase for the first letter). It can hypothetically be pronounced, but it generally is not, and the artist's own web site says "(pronounced 'dead mouse')" – that argument is just a red herring. I also disagree with item #6. The prior RM successfully passed a move review, so there is clearly no general agreement that it was badly done (although you are welcome to continue thinking otherwise if you wish). However, I will agree about items #7 and #8 and also bring up WP:TITLETM. It appears that "Deadmaus" is used so infrequently and is so abhorrent to fans that it is not generally recognized as an acceptable alternative. WP:TITLETM allows for exceptions to MOS:TM under such circumstances. So it's fine to move the article to "Deadmau5" – let's go ahead and do that. But I think some of the recent commentary here has been rather rude and somewhat counter-factual and anti-WP:AGF in support of that cause. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    Not only a minority of sources, but many of those sources are themselves small and little-known. I imagine that’s why so many people overlook them. —Frungi (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    Not all of them are small and little-known. All I'm saying is that there's a difference between "very few" and "none". —BarrelProof (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    He said many, not all. Also, I'm one of several editors whom had never heard of Deadmau5 before this discussion, and who state that the "Deadmau5" name is correct. It satisfies COMMONNAME clearly, which, as a policy, trumps the guidelines set out in the MOS. In reality, that in itself would be enough on its own for the move to go ahead. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    You said "he said many, not all". Did you read the two quotes that I cited? ("all reliable sources ... do not use that name" and "There are no reliable sources that use the name") The only "most" I found was saying "most people agree" with him, not about whether the sources are "most" or "all". And Nb07wiki's not the only one who's been bending the borderline between "most" and "all" and referring to "Deadmaus" an "invention" of Wikipedia editors. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    I believe he was referring to me ("many of those sources are themselves small and little-known"). —Frungi (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
    Oh. I wasn't trying to disagree with you (Frungi). I was just trying to emphasize that your comment was not actually disagreeing with mine. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Re: Nb07wiki's above summary: #1 is false because #4 is false. #2 is a lie (at this point there is no more delicate way to put it). #3 is also false because #4 is false. #4 is false: 4A is false because, besides containing the same lie as #2, it is not by appealing to the quantity of sources that we will determine what is a style and what is a spelling, it is by appealing to the meaning of the words 'style' and 'spelling'; 4B is false because an out-of-context tweet and a sarcastic remark on Reddit about not minding when the name is mispronounced do not supercede the artist's official biography on his own website. However, as I said above, IF it can be shown that "dead mau five" is an accepted alternate pronunciation, and is not widely regarded as a mispronunciation, then my argument is indeed unfounded, and I will retract it and support a move to Deadmau5. From googling, it would seem that pronouncing the name "dead mau five" is considered a faux pas on a par with styling the name without the numeral (you have fan pages like this for instance). #5 is irrelevant; we have a redirect and we don't care what Deadmaus fans want. The page must be written with those who are unfamiliar with the artist in mind. And given the existence of pages like this (and google "deadmau5 pronounced" for many more), it seems the style "Deadmau5" is confusing even to many fans. #6 is false because it contains, yet again, the same lie as #2, and the same errors as #4. #7 seems to be a misunderstanding of what consensus entails, as much of the above would have to be true in order for consensus to have been reached; it is not majority rule. #8 is a fair point, I simply disagree with the view that unpronounced decorative characters, that even demonstratively cause comprehension problems outside of the encyclopedia, should be allowed in article titles when perfectly acceptable alternative styles exist. Wetdogmeat (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
In response to both your and BarrelProof's arguments:
  1. This point is not a lie, that's simply an opinion which some of the "opposing" view hold, including yourself. While this discussion cannot be gauged by a majority, only a small number of people agree there is not a difference. I'll cover this more in point 4. As has been bought up previously, I can't understand why media/print sources, which I'm sure have style standards on par with Wikipedia, don't use "Deadmaus". It's because there is a clear difference.
  2. Deadmaus is invented. I've still not seen any convincing proof otherwise (calling it a "lie" is not proof, believe it or not). No official nor reliable sources use the name. Yes, I know some sources use the name, but it's not relevant; those are unreliable and mean nothing compared to enormous number of reliable sources who use the correct name. You can't just replace a character and say "oh, but it's the same thing, it's just a different style.". The name is now displayed differently and in this case, can be read differently (see point 4).
  3. Show me a single bit of proof that Deadmaus is the common name. Saying it is the same as Deadmau5 is not proof, per every argument made against this vs. your single argument for.
  4. Your reason to opposing this point makes no sense. "Eminem" and "Kesha" are all used by reliable sources. "Deadmaus" is not. I understand it's about style, but using "Deadmaus" is not appropriate for the reasons given above (again, please show how it's not invented). Also, how can it possibly be said that the artist saying the pronunciation of his name is not a valid source (with no evidence of sarcasm or no context), but the crummy sources that use Deadmaus are? I know, again, it's not about the number of sources, but if we are going to say that the second pronunciation is't valid (despite having a source), you're going to have a hard time convincing me that Deadmaus isn't invented and not in violation of WP:TITLECHANGES. Also, keep in mind that the pronunciation on deadmau5.com is written by a PR official; the pronunciation I have provided is from the artist himself. Hence, neither pronunciation should be ruled out.
  5. By saying that confusion is "irrelevant", you're violating the first three points of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. That's about all that needs to be said on this.
  6. Some may agree with me on this point, some may not. However it should be noted that the consensus to move the article back is much stronger that it was to move the article to Deadmaus, suggesting that there was something not quite right with the first move.
  7. I agree that it is a not a majority rule; however, you can't rule out the sheer number of people requesting a move a move back. As long as there are people against keeping the article where it is, there is no censensus. And of course, according to WP:NOCONSENSUS: "In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.". Meaning by default, even if there is no consensus, this article will be back at Deadmau5. But regardless, I disagree and I think there's a pretty strong consensus here.
  8. One thing that has bugged me during this whole ordeal is the fact that some editors pushing for "Deadmau5" have been quite rude and overzealous during this whole discussion. And there is zero reason why this should be occuring; it's a pure violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF and people should be handling this much more professionally. But, while I'm no psychologist, it's statements like you've made here that must really bug people; You've said that WP:IAR is a "fair point" but yet you "disagree with the view that unpronounced decorative characters ... should be allowed in article titles". These two points don't go together; you can't state both, because the impression given is that you know the current majority view is for the better of Wikipedia, but yet you seem to be so strongly fight what most would consider to be improvement. Now, I like to assume good faith, I understand that you have valid concerns and reasoning for your points, but you should also understand that saying statements like this can be taken the wrong way.
Anyway, I feel like both sides are simply reiterating the same points over and over, unless anyone can bring anything new to the table then I feel it's time for an admin to review this (as soon as policies allow). Nb07wiki (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say #1 was a lie, I said #2 was a lie. #1 is false because #4 is false. #2 is a lie. You've now said "I know some sources use the name". You're contradicting yourself. If some sources use the name, then I can't have invented it, can I? Making some appeal to quantity again is irrelevant. And you're not the first person to baldly assert that the sources originally provided are unreliable without even attempting to show how they don't meet WP:RS. It is simply another lie. Have a go at it. Here are the original sources provided, again: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. And remember it was also demonstrated above that the style has been used at times by Billboard, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Rolling Stone. And maybe even try googling it for yourself, and stop repeating the same blatant lie over and over. #3 Yes, "Deadmaus" and "Deadmau5" are the same name. The concept of spelling doesn't apply to numerals. See Websters, Oxford, Collins, for example. But, of course, the dictionaries are wrong and the Deadmaus fans are right. Right? No. #4 is false, as explained above. And as I said, the tweet is out-of-context, and on Reddit what he actually says is that he doesn't care when it's mispronounced (and it's obvously sarcastic; if he was annoyed by people referring to him by his stage name he wouldn't keep using it.) It doesn't supercede his official bio, or the numerous reliable sources that reproduce that pronuciation key. Also, now you "understand it's about style"? A minute ago it was about spelling (naming). Which is it? #5 I didn't say confusion is irrelevant. I said the need for a redirect and the hurt feelings of Deadmaus fans are irrelevant. Did you not read past the first sentence? Because I explicitly stated that avoiding confusion is important: "The page must be written with those who are unfamiliar with the artist in mind. And given the existence of pages like this (and google "deadmau5 pronounced" for many more), it seems the style "Deadmau5" is confusing even to many fans." #6 There is no consensus, because consensus is not majority rule. It doesn't matter if a thousand more people come in here and post some variation of "Support per WP:COMMONNAME" if none of them can show why that policy applies to this case. I don't think anyone has done that yet. The policy does not apply to style, it defers to the MOS. #7 And now "there is no consensus"? A second ago there was strong consensus. Oh, and there it is again at the end of your point, "strong consensus" resurfaces. Which is it? (It is, of course, no consensus, as explained in #6 above.) #8 I did not contradict myself, you misread my comment again. What I said is a "fair point" is the view that reproducing the common style is for the betterment of the encyclopedia. I simply disagree. I think not reproducing the unpronounced trademark decoration is for the betterment of the encyclopedia. I can see how someone might think otherwise, but I disagree. And I believe the policy is on my side. Wetdogmeat (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • On spelling: Websters, Oxford, Collins. Okay, and we've had the examples of "Ke$ha", 'spelled' with a dollar sign, and "BΔLΔM ΔCΔB", 'spelled' with triangles. So here's a reductio ad absurdum: is the title of American Desperado, as written on the book cover, spelled "A-M-E-R-I-C-A-N_D-E-S-P-E-R-A-D-O", or "A-M-cocaine-R-I-knife-A-N_D-E-money-P-E-gun-A-D-O"? Hmm? I'll say it again: the only reason this style ("Deadmau5") has been so widely reproduced is because the stylised character appears on a standard keyboard. The same applies to "Ke$ha", and does not apply to "BΔLΔM ΔCΔB" or "A-M-cocaine-R-I-knife-A-N_D-E-money-P-E-gun-A-D-O". Wetdogmeat (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
    Can you explain why "Ke$ha" is not the predominant usage by far, and "Deadmau5" is? —Frungi (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
No, nor why it's more widely reproduced than "Se7en", which is directly analogous. And I don't think it's relevant (sorry, I see my use of the word "so" there may have been misleading). The point is in the distinction between styles that are reasonably widely reproduced and styles that almost never are. That, I believe, is simply due to the presence of the replacement characters on standard keyboards. This point isn't particularly salient anyway; what's important is the fact that the numerals, the triangles, the monetary symbols and the graphical images share a common relation to the concept of spelling; that is, the concept equally does not apply to them. Therefore, "Deadmaus" and "Deadmau5" are the same word styled differently; and therefore, the common name is "Deadmaus", which is normally styled "Deadmau5"; and therefore, the question is which style to use, not which name to use; and therefore, WP:UCN does not apply. Wetdogmeat (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
This is the whole point of the argument: "Deadmaus" and "Deadmau5" are the same name (because they are the same word - same spelling, same pronunciation, same meaning), and therefore WP:UCN is neither here nor there (ie: we all agree that "Deadmaus/Deadmau5" is the common name, it's just that some of us are mistakenly convinced that the different styles are different names). Asserting to the contrary over and over without engaging the argument (which is what has gone on above by almost every contributor) would be the middle tier on this pyramid. Wetdogmeat (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  1. Well, any sensible interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME would include common styling - and the answer to that is overwhelming.
  2. Do you have no response to my second point? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
To 1: Some time ago, some editors (myself included) argued for COMMONNAME to explicitly include the name's style. There was no consensus. —Frungi (talk) 05:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. Thanks. That further supports my argument that WP:UCN doesn't apply to style. Wetdogmeat (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I’m surprised this needs clarifying here, but “no consensus” does not mean “no.” WP:COMMONNAME does not mention style at all, which means it also does not exclude style. There are a number of editors here who believe that the use of “5” in “Deadmau5” is a style, and that COMMONNAME should apply to that style. And according to that policy, they are not wrong. —Frungi (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
If it is proposed that WP:UCN be altered so that it explictly apply to style, then that implies that the policy does not explicitly apply to style. If the policy can then be cited in relation to style issues, then that means editors can make arguments by appealling to what polices don't actually say. Which of course means that either the policy is badly written, or original research of this capricious exegetical kind is, for some reason, permissable. Wetdogmeat (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
If the policy does not explicitly apply, but it also does not explicitly not apply, it’s open to interpretation. Since different people interpret such things differently, we ended up with no consensus for the change. (Note that, while there was no change one way, there was also no change the other way.) Hope that clears things up. —Frungi (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The application of policy always requires interpretation. But the policy only says what it explicitly says, and any interpretation must be based on what that is. Otherwise anyone could argue that any policy applies to anything. No policy comes with an addendum of an exhaustive list of issues to which it does not apply. This is what we've been arguing. The policy only explicitly applies to the naming of articles, that is, to the spelling of article titles. The policy does not explicitly apply to style, we agree on this point; if you want to show that the policy implicitly applies to style, then you have to provide some kind of evidence, whereby the policy could be interpreted as being applicable to style. You have been trying to argue (against Webster, Oxford, Collins, Chicago MOS) that the concept of spelling can in principle apply to literally any graphic - "Hi, my name's John, but I like to spell my name with pictures of fruit: it's spelled (apple)-(banana)-(pineapple)-(pear), and pronounced 'John'." This does not correspond to any reputable definition of the word. Wetdogmeat (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
1) WP:AT defers to the MOS (Manual of Style) on questions of style. So, no, given that, I don't think so. 2) It's just your opinion. What do you want me to say to it? I disagree. Yeah, there'll be irate Deadmaus fans and Joel Zimmerman won't think we're hip. I think hipness is one of the five pillars actually. Wetdogmeat (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
We have no policy, guideline, or consensus claiming that a numeral in a name pronounced as something that is not a number is always a question of style. Some, like you, believe that it always is. Some, like me, believe that in at least this case it is not. It is abundantly clear by now that neither is going to persuade the other. I recommend giving up that particular line of argument as completely unproductive. —Frungi (talk) 06:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Do we need a policy to tell us what the word 'spelling' means? Wetdogmeat (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I thought the issue here was the meaning of "style". But when there's disagreement over how the meaning of the word affects a major policy? I would say yes. —Frungi (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, the issue is the distinction between the two concepts, yes. So, as I said, if someone can find a definition of 'spelling' that allows for its application to numerals, geometric shapes, emoticons, monetary symbols, images, and all sorts and sundry, then let's see it. Likewise, if someone can find a definition of 'style' that incorporates the practice of spelling (using letters to form words), maybe we'll have a look at that too. And yeah, maybe you're right, but in the absence of such a policy, what do we look to? I gave you three major dictionaries that concur on the the definiiton of spelling as being applicable only to letters. Wetdogmeat (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Just indulging a tangent here, but the applicable definition in my primary dictionary, from Merriam-Webster, is as follows: “to make up (a word)” (as in, “What does this spell?”). Some definitions of word mention characters, but none mention letters, incidentally. —Frungi (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
You mean this definition, which states: "to name the letters of in order ... to write or print the letters of in order ... to make up (a word) <what word do these letters spell> ... to form words with letters"? Wetdogmeat (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I mean one of those definitions, yes. Obviously not all of them all at once; language does not work that way. —Frungi (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Which one are you referring to? The definition you posted does not appear in that dictionary. The definition you posted was "to make up (a word) (as in, “What does this spell?”)". The closest definition offered in Webster's is "to make up (a word) <what word do these letters spell>". There is no definition there that does not specify the application of the concept to the ordering of letters. Wetdogmeat (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Wait, I quoted the definition and then parenthetically gave an example outside of that quote. And the definition I quoted was the same as the one you did. Please stop playing these games. —Frungi (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see, my apologies. That's right, you left the inconvenient part out of the quotations so you could replace it with your own more convenient version. That's much better! Wetdogmeat (talk) 02:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Sarcasm is really helpful. —Frungi (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry... about as helpful as quote-doctoring, right? Wetdogmeat (talk) 03:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I understand your reasons for clinging to this argument. If you concede that the concept of spelling applies only to the organisation of letters in the formation of words (per every English dictionary), then your ability to argue that "Deadmaus" and "Deadmau5" are different words (and therefore different names, per every English dictionary) is severely weakened. There is nothing to a word other than spelling, pronunciation and meaning. If you concede that the dictionaries are right and you're wrong, then the only argument you have to fall back on is that "dead mau five" is an accepted alternate pronunciation. Maybe you should start working on that argument. I think it's a losing one too, but at least you're not taking on every English dictionary. Wetdogmeat (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Others have already argued that it’s acceptable to pronounce the “5” as a number. I presume that they have more knowledge or experience on the matter, so I’ll defer to them, and your counterarguments on that don’t seem any stronger to me. —Frungi (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
What, like the pronunciation key in the artist's official bio? Like the reproduction of that same key in any source that offers one? Like the innumerable fan conversations reproducing that key all over the internet? Versus... what? A comment on Reddit that actually demonstrates the opposite of what the person who posted it wanted it to, and an out-of-context tweet that ould mean anything. Yeah. Wetdogmeat (talk) 03:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Please see below. —Frungi (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
"Asserting to the contrary over and over without engaging the argument" - Isn't that EXACTLY what you are doing with our counters to your flawed assumptions! PantherLeapord (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
No. Exactly the opposite, in reality. But keep making stuff up. Why the hell not. Wetdogmeat (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
If UCN also included styling, then we need to rename a boatload of articles that just got styled with accents or non-English characters, over the last year, due to birth country usage, but not the dominant usage or the English usage -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
If you're referring to BLPs, those articles are held to different standards. —Frungi (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the above remarks, but this article is a BLP. Zimmerman is a live person, and this article is about him. Moreover, the WP:BLP policy applies to "information about living persons [on] any Wikipedia page". —BarrelProof (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Erk, good point. Sorry, I should rather have pointed to MOS:PN and MOS:FOREIGN. I was meaning to point out that the use of diacritical marks and such in foreign names is a separate issue. But it’s worth mentioning that his point about the incompatibility with COMMONNAME was a factor in the no-consensus I mentioned in my response to Boing!. —Frungi (talk) 06:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
If my arguments are "nonsensical at best", it should be a breeze to refute them. And yet... Wetdogmeat (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Almost every user here has done so. Several times over. And yet you still cling to your position like a limpet on a rock, and refuse to drop the stick, admit you're wrong (which consensus here clearly shows - even admins are supporting the move, don't forget) or, at the very least, you could just drop the stick and leave the discussion. At the end of the day, as I've said several times myself, COMMONNAME is policy, MOS is not. COMMONNAME trumps MOS. And as to a truly nonsensical argument - it's pretty simple really: you claim changing a character in a name doesn't change the name. That's absurd, and incorrect, as everyone has shown. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Admins have no more authority over content issues than anyone else, so the admin status of anyone here is actually not relevant. Oh, and if we want to bring an end to this pointless argument, it really does only need one side to drop it ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The ONLY person who has made a serious attempt at refuting my argument is Frungi. Otherwise, I have got nothing but assertions to the contrary, blatant fabrications that have been debunked repeatedly right from the beginning of the initial RM, and various failures to comprehend the point. And yes, changing a triangle that stands in for an A to an A, or three lines of cocaine that stand in for an E to an E, does not change the name, it merely removes the decoration. The word remains the same (same meaning, same spelling, same pronunciation), and therefore the name remains the same. I have provided dictionary definitions of the word 'spelling' that demonstrate that the concept applies only to the use of letters in the formation of words. "Ke$ha" and "Kesha" are the same name, "BΔLΔM ΔCΔB" and "Balam Acab" are the same name, "AM(cocaine)RI(knife)AN DE(money)PE(gun)ADO" and "American Desperado" are the same name, and "Deadmau5" and "Deadmaus" are also the same name. Do you think a name written in all caps is also a different name? Are "John" and "JOHN" different names? No. Yet the characters have been changed. In order for the name to be changed, the word must be changed, in which case the spelling, pronunciation, or meaning must be changed. Go ahead and assert to the contrary again, maybe once more will do the trick. Wetdogmeat (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Once again, you're being nonsensical, and as always, using an OTHERSTUFF argument. Changing something from a 1 to an I or a ! is not the same as changing an A to an a. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Only one or two users claimed that the "Deadmaus" name was a fabrication, and I'm not one of those users. The "Deadmaus" name is a typing error, nothing more, nothing less. Again, none of us understand why you are so uptight over this particular name, which is neither policy-compliant, nor logical. I'm pretty much done with this now - you keep going around in circles, and still you fail to see how you're wrong, and how you've been proven wrong. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which is why I linked you to three actual dictionaries. And, um, yes, changing an A to an a IS changing a character, which is the sole criterion you gave for determining whether one word differs from 'another' - an altered character. And it is not an OTHERSTUFF argument, they are merely analogies used to illustrate the point; that is, the the numeral in "Deadmau5", the shapes in "BΔLΔM ΔCΔB", the monetary symbol in "Ke$ha" and the images in "AM(cocaine)RI(knife)AN DE(money)PE(gun)ADO" share a common relation to the concept of spelling. You've totally ignored that central point, and, surprise surprise, called it 'nonsensical' without demonstrating why, and then asserted to the contrary. If my point is valid (and NO ONE has demonstrated that it isn't; you yourself have not even attempted to), then it follows that WP:UCN does not apply to this case, and therefore all !votes that have supported the move per that policy are invalid. Wetdogmeat (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Because I don't agree that it's for the greater good of the encyclopedia, as I've explained several times. Wetdogmeat (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I see. Exactly in what way will it not benefit the encyclopedia that "Deadmau5" becomes the title again, as it was with great stability for 5 years since its creation, without problems until now? I'm sorry for asking these questions, but I simply cannot wrap my head around why this is a huge problem when "Deadmau5" will obviously create peace and minimize the ridicule inflicted on the encyclopedia. "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" pop up almost at once in Google Instant when you write "Wikipedia is", and that should say something about our already tainted reputation. The "Deadmaus" title does nothing to remove this stigma; infact, it does the opposite. So why? --Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad 16:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
See the arguments made by myself, Masem, Powers, X201, BarrelProof and others (even Frungi) here. Wetdogmeat (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. --Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad 16:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
You mean WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source? It's not; it's not supposed to be. But I agree with your overall point. —Frungi (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, it's not a reliable source, nor will it ever truly be. What I was arguing was our reputation not needing to be tainted further becuase of something like this, and this, "Deadmaus", is seriously bad for us. One must consider that. But aparrantly, bureaucracies are more important. --Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad 20:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reasonability Rule should govern all we do.Moxy (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
That's a distraction. Wikipedia:Reasonability Rule is only an essay – not a guideline or policy. I don't think I've ever encountered it before. In my opinion, it isn't very well written and I'm guessing that it hasn't received a lot of scrutiny. Its edit history is relatively thin, and it seems roughly redundant with other remarks found here. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Its a common sense statement - one sentence - no need for it to be a policy or a guide. What we need here is more people to use common sense over trying to reinforce an odd bureaucracy. How many more readers (non editors - third parties) and editors themselves need to complain before the principle behind the ESSAY Reasonability Rule is taken into account? Find it surprising we even need an essay of this nature - but we do as demonstrated here. Moxy (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
So wikipedians now need a policy in order to act reasonably? Wow. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe I donated $20 to Wikipedia and then someone changes 'deadmau5' to 'Deadmaus'. Nobody, anywhere, writes it 'Deadmaus' - and although the Wikipedians are arguing that 'deadmau5' and 'Deadmaus' are the same thing but the first is stylised, it is only the first that is actually correct. The artist himself supports 'deadmau5', the media/album covers support 'deadmau5' and 'I'm sure most people who use Wikipedia would support it too. I don't understand how it's acceptable to change someone else's stage name just because it 'agrees with Wikipedia guidelines'.... Just change it to 'deadmau5' leave it alone Wikipedia. samcooke343 (talk) 18.33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Break—RM4 Discussion

Relevant: I posted on WT:AT to ask for clarification on the intended meaning of WP:TITLETM. I humbly ask that no one involved in this discussion reply there (I haven’t posted my view there either); I'd prefer to get the opinions of uninvolved editors. —Frungi (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I doubt whether you are going to find uninvolved editors at WT:AT... this discussion has been going on for a while now, and most of the regular contributors to that policy page (like me) have already participated in this discussion. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this wetdogmeat guy is being pretty ridiculous. Here's another example for you: Look at the article for the Television show M*A*S*H. Do you pronounce it "M-asterisk-A-asterisk-S-asterisk-H?" Since you're so gung-ho on these issues, go harass one of the thousands of other pages such as that. Credible sources show the TV series was spelled like that, correct? How is that any different from this situation? They're both names (again, legally trademarked names) and they both serve as logos at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.45.224.215 (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2013‎ (UTC)

Please keep the tone civil. That seems to be bordering on WP:NPA. Also, it's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, and that example's been brought up before (also W*A*L*T*E*R, "Heroes", $h*! My Dad Says, F♯ A♯ ∞, and U-J3RK5). I think such cases are relatively rare, but there are some. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Since I’m sick of hunting through the massive subsection above, all of my further replies will be made here. To sum up my arguments:

  • The standard representation of the name among reliable sources is “Deadmau5”, even though it includes a numeral in it.
  • WP:COMMONNAME supports “Deadmau5” per the above point, as does WP:TITLETM—it’s “demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark.”
  • MOS:TM does not claim that names must only include letters or may not include numerals. It does prohibit “special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words,” but the “5” is pronounced (whether as a 5 or as an S), is not purely decoration, and does not substitute for a word. It also says to “choose the style that most closely resembles standard English,” but the exact meaning of “standard English” here is unclear (see the next point).
  • Reliable sources (which use standard English) overwhelmingly use “Deadmau5” over “Deadmaus”. Even if the above points were untrue, this is grounds for an exception.

On to responses.

To User:Wetdogmeat here: I said I wasn’t going to argue that point. Stop it, and stop ignoring the spoken uses. Go argue it in #Since when is the 5 not pronounced?. Also see the claim in #Pronunciation about Deadmau5’s video blog (and, again, reply to it, not to me).

To the same user here: From a cursory Web search, it seems like the Tech N9ne and Sunn O))) moves may have gone against the MOS:TM mandate to only use styles already in use; even if not, a case could probably be made to move them back. Anyway, when I asked for “successful” moves similar to this past one, I meant moves that have been established and are not in danger of being moved back; these two examples seem too recent to judge (and possibly too little-known to serve as useful examples).

To the same user’s multiple arguments about the concept of spelling: I don’t care how the word is defined. I made it clear to you what I meant by its use, and you declined to propose a more fitting word (until you sarcastically proposed “style”, which doesn’t fit either since that word doesn’t encompass normal spelling). The word doesn’t matter. WP:COMMONNAME does not mention any variant of the word. Neither does MOS:TM. WP:TITLETM does, but unless you can demonstrate that the wording was intended to limit names to letters-only spellings, I say it’s valid (arguably even common sense) to interpret it a bit more broadly (within reason. Please don’t respond to this with an unreasonable absurdity).

—Frungi (talk) 06:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

As to the assertion that “There is nothing to a word other than [letter] spelling, pronunciation and meaning,” I disagree. I say, rather, that there is nothing to a word other than its standard representations (including written and spoken) and its meaning. While written representations of words often consist solely of letters, they sometimes include diacritics, punctuation (won’t and wont are two different words), numerals (catch-22, not catch-twenty-two), and in the case of some proper names, other characters. This concludes all I have to say on the subject of “spelling” as relevant to this move. —Frungi (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

  • To be honest, I agree with that as well - most people object to Deadmaus as they don't like it, although they use policy to make their comment. In my case, I don't have a clue who Deadmau5 is, nor do I care - I just want to see some common sense here for a change. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There you have it, Wetdogmeat; your arguments demolished point by point by Frungi. Not sure there is more to do now than to wait for the RM to end, change the title to the correct one according to consensus and common sense, hopefully closing this forever. This has been an embarrasing chapter for Wikipedia. --Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad 15:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    • There's no "demolishing" going on here – just people making remarks who have different background and different facts at hand and have differing opinions and different interpretations of policy. I suggest to WP:AGF and drop the accusatory tone and the pretense that anyone is winning or losing or that points are being demolished in this argument. Someone doesn't have to respond over and over just to reiterate that they disagree with the latest remark made by someone else who also keeps commenting over and over. And this is not a trial with cross-examination opportunity – people don't have to answer accusatorily-phrased questions. I'm tempted to oppose the move to Deadmau5 just out of irritation with the tone of some of the remarks here and the inability of some people to acknowledge the possible validity of other peoples' opinions. Please be WP:CIVIL. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
      This is something that continually frustrates me about WIkipedia as well, no matter which side of the debate I’m on. Far too often, it seems like no one on either side (including the one I’ve chosen) is willing to entertain the blasphemous possibility that the other side might have a valid point. Of course, I can’t say I’m never guilty of it as well, but I was actually considering posting (what I think are) the strongest opposing arguments just to be fair. And I’m not sure exactly who you were directing that to, but if you (anyone) ever believe I’ve been uncivil, I’m likely unaware, so please bring up details at my Talk page. —Frungi (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I got carried away, and I'm sorry for that. I meant no disrespect to said user, of course, but this bureaucracy battle has just been a pain to watch, when it in the end comes down to what Boing! said Zebedee pointed out: "Deadmaus" makes us look stupid, and that is fact; if this title is supposed to stay (note that Deadmau5 is very well known around the world), people would search for him as Deadmau5 (not "Deadmaus"), probably looking at Wikipedia first. We are lucky that the ridicule hasn't been any worse than it could be. That's what I said earlier about the title "Deadmau5" being for the greater good of Wikipedia. "Deadmaus" could actually be damaging for us. Do we really want to radically cling to our policies and petty bureaucracies when the whole world is pointing fingers at us? But again, I apologize for my un-civility. --Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad 17:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I don’t know if that’s a valid concern. Wikipedia should never be bullied into anything, so I don’t know whether we should listen to ridicule. But reputation and reputability are valid concerns. People more eloquent than I should explain the difference, but I think you’re right that name changes like this might harm those. This is one of the reasons I’ve been pushing for the name used by the vast majority of sources. —Frungi (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

While I imagine the opposing parties no longer care for any form of evidence regarding pronunciation, here is a tweet from deadmau5, the previous one I linked in fact, but with context this time; the context being deadmau5 telling a fan his name is pronounced "dead mow five". If this isn't evidence, I don't know what is. But of course, per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, this will be ignored. Nb07wiki (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deadmau5/Archive_3&oldid=1144520592"