Talk:Statue of Michael Jackson (Fulham F.C.)

Requested move 21 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Statue of Michael Jackson (Fulham). The existence of article Michael Jackson and Bubbles invalidates the main argument to move to Statue of Michael Jackson. The other two alternatives seem to have similar support. I chose the option that was more concise. Per WP:OTHEROPTIONS, a new RM can be opened at any time to change to "Fulham F.C." or something else. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Fulham statue of Michael Jackson → Statue of Michael Jackson – There may be other statues of Michael Jackson, but I'm not seeing other notable statues on Wikipedia with a similar name, so disambiguation is not required at this time. Per WP:VAMOS, "For portrait sculptures of individuals in public places the forms "Statue of Fred Foo", "Equestrian statue of Fred Foo" or "Bust of Fred Foo" are recommended, unless a form such as "Fred Foo Memorial" or "Monument to Fred Foo" is the WP:COMMONNAME. If further disambiguation is needed, because there is more than one sculpture of the same person with an article, then disambiguation by location rather than the sculptor is usually better. This may be done as either "Statue of Fred Foo (Chicago)" (typically preferred for North America) or "Statue of Fred Foo, Glasgow" (typically preferred elsewhere). If the sculpture has a distinct common name, like the Bronze Horseman, that should be used." --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 16:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Strange case where article is disambiguated (unnecessarily to boot) at start of article title; correct name should actually be something like Statue of Michael Jackson (Fulham), but as no other articles exist, no need to disambiguate at all. GiantSnowman 16:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Statue of Michael Jackson is too ambiguous. A better name would be Statue of Michael Jackson (Fulham). Mannysoloway (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose there are multiple statues of Michael Jackson around the world, this one only has an article because someone made an article, not because it is more notable or less notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp Exactly, so disambiguation is not needed until there are other articles about notable statues of Jackson. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  I would not object to simple Statue of Michael Jackson if that ends up being supported. However, I can see another debate like this when someone creates an article on another statue of Michael Jackson. Sometimes disambiguation before it's strictly necessary is a good idea. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I vote to keep the current name of the article. And not because I'm the user who changed it, but because I think "Statue of Michael Jackson" is too generic. It would only make sense if there was only one Jackson statue in the whole world. There are others like the one in Yekaterinburg, the one in the Brazilian favela, others in China.. but those do not have their own article. My intention for the future is not to create an article for each statue, but a list covering all of them. That's why I think the name "Statue of Michael Jackson" is no longer plausible for this particular statue. On the other hand, I did weigh that the new name should be "Statue of Michael Jackson (Fulham)" as a matter of uniformity. But the issue is that the statue is no longer in Fulham, but in Manchester (where it is not even being displayed), and I don't think it has sufficient link to Manchester to include the city's name in the article's title. For that reason, to try to say something like "Fulham-related statue of Michael Jackson", I have chosen the current title, as indeed the statue is related to Fulham, to its soccer club and to its stadium (even if it is not located there). Salvabl (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Understood. Your argument makes sense except it overlooks one critical fact. This statue of MJ is the only one shown to have enough coverage in reliable sources (RS) to have its own article. That means if anyone is looking for a statue of MJ, they’re most likely looking for this one. Hence the proposed title. The fact that other statues of MJ exist is irrelevant because they’re so relatively unlikely to be sought. We don’t just rename it because it’s ambiguous with potential, or even actual, other topics covered on WP. We first must establish that it’s not the PRIMARYTOPIC for this name, and we’re nowhere close to that here. Make sense? So, if there is sufficient RS coverage about any of those other statues then go ahead and create the article as you see fit. Add a hatnote link to it from this article. Then, after a year or so we can look at page views to see if the assumption that this one is the primary topic still holds. And please try to remember and respect this approach has community consensus on WP, though there is an outspoken and arguably disruptive minority that favors a much more liberal approach to disambiguation, hence a few Opposes at proposals like this. Okay? —В²C ☎ 16:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • You might like to strike out your !vote above like this to indicate your later support below (and thank you for it). This would make it easier for the closer and does not violate WP:TALK#REVISE (which suggests a slightly different markup but either is acceptable IMO). Andrewa (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Statue of Michael Jackson (Fulham F.C.). Normally I'd support comma disambiguation for UK topics, but it's no longer in Fulham or indeed really located anywhere. Its main claim to fame is that it originally stood outside Craven Cottage. The current article title is not our usual format. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support Statue of Michael Jackson (Fulham F.C.), but not just 'Statue of Michael Jackson' Vacamiera (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Necrothesp, I think you have found a better way than mine to establish the title of this article. It adheres to the usual format, and leaves no room for ambiguity. I also support the title Statue of Michael Jackson (Fulham F.C.). Salvabl (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support. There is no evidence of any need to disambiguate. The disambguation was introduced by

00:31, 20 January 2022 Salvabl talk contribs block  93 bytes +93  Salvabl moved page Statue of Michael Jackson to Fulham Statue of Michael Jackson: There are more Michael Jackson statues around the world. In addition, this one is no longer on display. It contains its own history, related to Fulham.

The rationale for this bold move completely missed the point. None of these more Michael Jackson statues have articles and we do not indulge in guesses as to whether they may do so in time. Andrewa (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support per Andrewa and strongly disagree with the notion that “Sometimes disambiguation before it's strictly necessary is a good idea.” Like courts must assume innocence until guilt is proven, we must assume non-notability until notability is proven as manifested by an actual article. We do not and cannot disambiguate with hypothetical uses not proven to be sufficiently notable to have an article on WP by actually having an article on WP. The other thing is that even if other uses of the name in question are found to be sufficiently notable to have articles, the original article created with that name is likely to be the primary topic for that name anyway, and, again, we must assume it is the primary topic until proven otherwise. In this case there is no evidence other statues of MJ exist of sufficient notability to have articles, much less of sufficient likelihood of being sought to make this one not be the primary topic. —В²C ☎ 05:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support. I want to apologize for my wrongdoing. The name change made by me has not been correct. The title Statue of Michael Jackson (Fulham F.C.) sounded like a good proposal to me, but I understand that for now it is not appropriate for this article. In the future I would like to create a list covering all the Michael Jackson statues around the world, or more appropriately "memorials" (similar to the List of memorials to Elvis Presley); but before compiling such a list it is necessary to research everything properly (mainly the exact location of the various statues in China). After that, we can all discuss together how to rename the articles (if it is necessary to do so), reaching common consensus and surely the best possible option. I would like to thank @Andrewa and you for the explanation about PRIMARYTOPIC provided by you yesterday. It helped me to understand it better applied to this matter. Salvabl (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• We are all learners here, and thank you for being such a willing one! See also my essay on another wiki. You are definitely on the way to becoming an expert. And there is no royal road. Andrewa (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. I think Wikipedia is an entire universe and it takes time to understand it. I didn't think this title change would lead to such a discussion, but I find the discussions undoubtedly enriching. Although my contributions are not big, I try that they improve at least something the articles, or bring more objectivity.. and I try to weigh my actions before carrying them out, and if necessary, discuss about it. One of the positive things I have already obtained from this discussion are your explanations, I have already learned things, and I'm sure that after the present discussion this statues issue will be handled in a better way in Wikipedia. Salvabl (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are at least 10 well known sculptures (not counting copies) of Michael Jackson. Two have articles, this, Fulham statue of Michael Jackson and Michael Jackson and Bubbles. These, and another eight, are listed at Cultural impact of Michael Jackson#Sculptures, and this is where Statue of Michael Jackson should redirect to. Fulham statue of Michael Jackson is a bad name, but the proposal makes things worse. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. Given the existence of Michael Jackson and Bubbles (thanks for pointing that out, SmokeyJoe), I think we can abandon the notion that this statue doesn't need disambiguating, since that one is also clearly a statue of Michael Jackson. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Except that Michael Jackson and Bubbles isn’t a statue, it’s a sculpture.--Egghead06 (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The difference being? Considering statues are created by sculptors as opposed to statuers! Statues are sculptures. A sculpture of a person is a statue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    • From the OED: Statue: "A representation in the round of a person, animal, etc., which is sculptured, moulded, or cast in marble, metal, plaster, or a similar material; esp. such a representation of a god, allegorical figure, or eminent person, usually life-size or larger." Sculpture: "The product of the sculptor's art; that which is sculptured (or engraved); sculptured figures in general." So what, precisely, makes it not a statue? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Except that the article for Jackson and Bubbles describes it as a sculpture and the Fulham one is described as a statue. Size and materials matter here. Thus they are not the same thing and therefore need no disambiguation. Bringing the Bubbles sculpture into consideration is a red herring.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
        • It's completely irrelevant what particular words our articles use to describe them. They are both sculptures and they are both statues per the English language. That's why they need disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment This matter is certainly getting complicated.. I think many readers may perceive the terms "statue" and "sculpture" as almost synonymous, and I had overlooked the existence of the Michael Jackson and Bubbles article. I also hadn't noticed that a list of Michael Jackson statues had been included in the Cultural impact of Michael Jackson article. However, I think those statues should be listed in an article similar to the List of memorials to Elvis Presley. I was going to have reverted the article's title to its previous one, but I don't think enough consensus has been reached yet. I'm going to add strikethroughs to make it easier to count the votes in this discussion. Salvabl (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. This is the only article on a statue of Jackson therefore there is no need to disambiguate.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 5 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Favonian (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Statue of Michael Jackson (Fulham) → Statue of Michael Jackson (Fulham F.C.) – The current article title doesn't follow the usual practice for disambiguating British topics by location, because it uses brackets rather than a comma (as can be seen in the quote from WP:VAMOS in the previous RM nomination). But, as was also noted above, using the location "Fulham" as a disambiguator is unsatisfactory because the statue was later moved to the National Football Museum in Manchester, and later still it was completely removed from public display. Necrothesp's suggestion of making the name of the football club the disambiguator is much better because it gives an indication of the original location, while also giving the association that explains why it was moved to its second location, a football museum. Ham II (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support agree the location is confusing given it went to Manchester though "Fulham" can be used a a short form for Fulham F.C. it still implies its to do with the settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 22:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. GiantSnowman 22:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Per my comment above, "Normally I'd support comma disambiguation for UK topics, but it's no longer in Fulham or indeed really located anywhere. Its main claim to fame is that it originally stood outside Craven Cottage". This is an unusual case, and I believe this is the best solution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Salvabl (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I don't understand why the closer of the previous RM didn't move to this title, which is clearly better than the one they chose. Oh well. Vpab15 (talk) 09:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.