Talk:Stinkdigital

Requested move 20 February 2017

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus, primarily due to a lack of discussion about the specific issue at hand. Feel free to renominate in a few weeks, but if you do so please back your nomination with evidence in reliable sources independent of the subject. Jenks24 (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Stinkdigital → Stink Studios – Company recently rebranded to Stink Studios. http://www.stinkstudios.com/news/an-important-announcement-new-year-new-us Pkram77 (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Another baseless nomination. Please read wp:official names. Andrewa (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - unlike Andrewa I don't particularly see a reason not to move this. Most of the time when a company changes name, we follow suit, per WP:NAMECHANGES, unless reliable sources don't start using the new name. However, @Pkram77: I do have a question regarding this - according to the website, Stink Studios is part of the wider Stink group, which also includes Stink Films. Should this article cover all three entities, or strictly only Stink Studios? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Need for sources

Very interesting comment by Amakuru above. So, in such cases, the onus of proof is on those opposing the move to show that it's not now the common name, rather than on those supporting it (such as the nom) to show that it is?

I don't object to that principle at all if we have consensus to adopt it, it would simplify many naming discussions.

I do think that such a radical departure from our general naming conventions needs to be documented in an official naming convention, probably Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies).

And I'm not convinced that it's our practice to follow suit or that we will get consensus on adopting it. See Talk:Molycorp#Requested move 12 February 2017, in which Amakuru recenty participated, and Talk:MediaMiser#Requested move 21 December 2016, which should be immediately reproposed if this principle is upheld. And in the case of MediaMiser, that will save me the ongoing task of looking for sources, a very welcome development. Andrewa (talk) 05:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Andrewa: good to see you. I'm going to have to think about this some more, and I'll get back to you later! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia talk:Another baseless nomination#No consensus on this would be a better place to discuss. There are new cases coming up all the time. Andrewa (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewa: WP:Another baseless nomination is just an essay, and one marked "humorous" at that, so I personally I wouldn't pay much attention to that. The relevant policy here is WP:NAMECHANGES, which advises us to treat sources published after the name change with more weight than those before. In most cases I believe we *should* update a name when it changes officially, because in most cases reliable sources will also do so. It's only in rarer cases like Molycorp, whose notability is solely confined to their earlier incarnation, or where there's a very established name for something, that we might choose to take a different course. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Amakuru, I agree with most of that, but probably disagree with the conclusion.

You say that In most cases I believe we *should* update a name when it changes officially..., and I agree unless you mean we should do so without evidence. This particular nomination was presented without evidence. That's what made it baseless, and that's why I objected.

You continue ...because in most cases reliable sources will also do so. (my emphasis) Yes, exactly. But how do we distinguish these cases? Current policy is, by evidence. Sources since the rename are given more weight. But to move without any evidence is a violation of wp:ball, surely?

The only question is, do primary sources, such as press releases announcing the change and articles that primarily announce this change, count as evidence? I would say not. They will always indicate that the name has changed, and are therefore worthless in deciding this particular issue.

And the current policy seems to work in this particular instance. Andrewa (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the sources are always our primary driver, but I disagree that there's any more onus on those wishing to change the name to make their case than those opposing. If I'm closing a request of this nature, and the proposer says "move because the name's changed", while the opposer says "no, don't move, because that's not how it works around here", I don't rate either of those arguments as particularly useful. In such a case I would have to go out and look at the evidence myself, as I did with Stinkdigital, and work out whether the new name was now in common use. Which arguably the move proposer should have done in the first place, but we can't expect everyone to be an expert on policy, and it's more useful for the encyclopedia for them to propose a correct move even if it lacks evidence, than for the name change to go unnoticed when sources suggest the move should be made. Anecdotally, over the years, I have found that much more often that not the new name does take hold quickly, and per NAMECHANGES, we therefore move. That's where my comment about "most cases" came from above. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

You disagree that there's any more onus on those wishing to change the name to make their case than those opposing... that's a fairly fundamental disagreement IMO. We have a default of no move when there's no evidence or no consensus.

Certainly agree that the best course in such cases is to look for evidence. But of course we get accused of casting a supervote if we then close on the basis of this evidence.

And certainly agree that we can't expect everyone to be an expert on policy, and it's more useful for the encyclopedia for them to propose a correct move even if it lacks evidence, than for the name change to go unnoticed when sources suggest the move should be made. But the obvious downside of this is, not all of these move proposals are correct. That is, while more often that not the new name does take hold quickly, and per NAMECHANGES, we therefore move, it's not all that unusual for the name change to fail to take hold either. And this is a waste of time.

That's unless the proposer learns something. That was the point of both wp:official names and wp:another baseless nomination. And dare I say it, of the many existing appeals to read WP:AT before proposing or !voting on a move.

And the more subtle but perhaps more important downside is, I'm afraid I don't see expecting even a newbie to follow that advice as expecting everyone to be an expert on policy. I think it's a reasonable expectation, and I'm interested in other ways of making it clear. But isn't it clear enough already? By encouraging such (in my view) substandard behaviour, aren't we just making problems for ourselves in the future, when the same users don't or won't read or comply with other policies and guidelines?

And if they do this, IMO it's not their fault. Not at all. It is entirely the fault of the old hands who don't correct such obvious mistakes. End of sermon. Andrewa (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2017 (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.

Change name to 'Stink Group'

Hello.

I wanted to pick up on a previous closed chat regarding changing the name of this article page.

I believe the now newly named 'Stink Studios' is more recognisable than 'Stink Digital', here are a couple of secondary sources to show this point. https://www.webbyawards.com/winners/2018/advertising-media-pr/craft/best-branded-editorial-experience/a-message-from-earth/ https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/stink-studios-promotes-britton-global-md/1435661

I do agree that the page should be changed to the overall group 'Stink Group' including references to 'Stink Studios' and 'Stink Films' as this is what is stated on their website - https://stink.co/

To note, 'Stink Films' was established 20 years ago and is more well-known in the industry than 'Stink Studios', see links below to show history of the company starting as 'Stink Films'. http://adage.com/article/special-report-top-production-companies/daniel-bergmann-stink-london/96590/ https://www.creativereview.co.uk/creativeleaders50/leader/daniel-bergmann/

However, today all companies connect under the 'Stink Group' umbrella therefore it makes more sense to have 1 page connecting both companies than setting up a new page for each. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmanab (talk • contribs) 11:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I concur with the opinion that there is enough secondary source information contained within the article to justify the recognizability and notability of Stink Studios. But I haven't found many secondary source references to the organizational structure of Stink Group. https://www.wsj.com/articles/global-marketing-company-joins-tesla-in-red-hook-1501439477 https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelarthur/2017/11/22/yoox-launches-ephemeral-and-exclusive-shoppable-videos-on-youtube/ http://www.planetary.org/multimedia/planetary-radio/show/2018/0228-message-from-earth.html Timtastic (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)