- Usher (musician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)
The move discussion involved two editors who were blocked, and a number of IP accounts with few or no other contributions outside the discussion. This was not taken into account by the closer, who is also an IP account with few edits. Policy based arguments were put forward with linked evidence, which was not taken into account by the closer. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to move as proposed. I would have !voted oppose in this move (and I couldn't name you one of his songs), but the policy and sourcing based arguments were clearly on the side of moving. I don't think relisting would do anything more than bring in extra !votes from fans. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn closure and move to Usher (singer) per SilkTork's rational and my !vote in the original move request. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the practical result of the closure, without necessarily endorsing the particular way this was closed. Yes, the discussion had problems, including sock puppets and a closer who seemingly dropped in from hyperspace. However, this article has been the subject of a very large number of move discussions, most of which have simply moved the article back and forth without any conclusive resolution to the basic issue. At this point it shouldn't be moved without an overwhelming consensus, which didn't exist here - otherwise there will simply be a reverse move request in a year or so and the underlying problem will continue. I trust I will not be discounted as an IP "with few or no other contributions" merely because I don't use an account. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't count you as an account with "few or no other contributions" because you do have substantial contributions. By the way, did you note the part in my rationale where I pointed out that the recent move from Usher (singer) to Usher (musician) had not been fully carried out, so that there still remain templates and categories and hundreds of links with the term Usher (singer). The path of least resistance is to retain the previous name of Usher (singer) which it had held for some time before the recent move: Talk:Usher_(musician)/Archive_2#Requested_move_5_May_2017. It is also noteworthy that the May 2017 move request was made by an IP account with a total of six edits over three days. SilkTork ✔Tea time 06:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That does look like a bad problem, and I wasn't aware of it. I would have voted the same way, however; more general descriptions are better. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The identity of the move requestor should make no difference in the way we appreciate their arguments and evaluate the discussion through the lens of policy. We should respect that the OP of May 2017 took the time to find out how to submit a move request, phrased it properly, backed it with similar cases (Prince, Sia, Drake) and I see no reason to doubt their good faith in this instance. They raised a question, the community discussed, and the title was changed. In July, somebody else raised the opposite question, the community discussed again, the closer found no consensus when assessing the discussion, and we are here only reviewing the closer's reasoning. — JFG talk 05:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endrose. Since the account that initiated the discussion was deemed a sock puppet (Ddd23), i see no reason for the whole proposal to remain alive. I originally opposed the move because Usher covered more than singing, including performance and instruments; additionally siding by 92.20.88.238's argument, he is indeed primarily considered "a musician" on Bio.Khaire Nuh (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist. The reasons Silktork have given are compelling for overturning, however many of the arguments supporting the move are not. Better to let this one go a while longer for additional, non-sock input.--Cúchullain t/c 19:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and declare a 6-month moratorium. Too many moves, no strong objection to either possible title disambiguator (singer, musician, entertainer, artist, whatnot). Given the polar opposites in discussion, had the closer decided to move, that could have been considered a WP:Supervote likely to be overturned. The "no consensus" reading is more accurate. Relisting is unlikely to bring more clarity; I relisted the original discussion and it received only one support and one oppose during the extended week. — JFG talk 21:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree there should be a moratorium on move requests for this article. As for fixing which name it should be held at, if you see my point above to IP account 64.105.98.115, the recent move from Usher (singer) to Usher (musician) has not been fully carried out so there are categories and hundreds of links, etc, which use Usher (singer). The path of least resistance, especially when (like me really) there is no strong preference for which disambiguator to use, is to use Usher (singer), as it involves the least work for the project. SilkTork ✔Tea time 06:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I don't see a consensus here. Clearly, given the history of this title, and the sheer number of RMs over the years, there is no right or wrong answer to this question. Yes, he mainly sings, but as pointed out by some opposers, he does sometimes play instruments as well, a point which was made twice by opposers but never answered by any of the supporters. As JFG says above, I don't think anyone could have fairly called this a "consensus to move" without accusations of a supervote, and it had already been relisted once. Best to concentrate on finishing off the category moves leftover from the May move, and declare a moratorium on further RMs, unless significant new arguments come forth. — Amakuru (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn with no prejudice against a relist (though moving back to "Usher (singer)" is preferable). SilkTork's detailed and well-researched rationale alone carried much more weight than any of the opposes combined and its points shouldn't be overlooked, even if he doesn't only sing. Furthermore, "singer" is a more specific term that is very well known to apply to Usher. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, and relist, without moratorium: looking at close instructions should have been closed by an admin not by an IP. Cannot see any reason above for any of the Endorse statements. FWIW "singer Usher" About 1,050 results vs "musician Usher" About 156 results indicates that eventually the article will move to the more common descriptor, but that's not the point, this close should not be endorsed even by those who agree with the result. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, the previous RMs succeeded in removing the title (entertainer) ...a descriptor which has something of a history on en.wp as almost an honorific..., but (singer) has been stable. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And so this boring repetitive argument goes on, and on, and on, and on.
- If there is only one Usher notable for music, the correct Wiki disambiguator is (musician), because it's the most general one. Should there be other notable musicians called Usher, the way to distinguish them is by genre, by instrument, or by birth date.
- This is getting tedious. I can't find the links, but this looks to me like part of an ongoing campaign to promote Usher (musician) up to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Well, he isn't. Narky Blert (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Narky Blert: You don't say whether you endorse the move? No opinion? — JFG talk 06:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @JFG: I abstained, because both (musician) and (singer) are perfectly good qualifiers. Provided that one redirects to the other, readers can easily find what they're looking for - which is, for me, the only thing that matters. I have a mild preference for (musician), which also happens to be the status quo; and as far as I can see currently involves no double redirects (which a move to (singer) would create). I consider discussions like this fanclub stuff, and a waste of bandwidth and editors' energy. I would definitely support a moratorium on this topic being raised again for at least six months. Narky Blert (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Narky Blert: I understand that you don't mind which qualifier is used, but the question at Move Review is "did the closer correctly reflect consensus or lack thereof?" Do you have an opinion on this? — JFG talk 13:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Having weighed the arguments in the most recent move discussion, and not having the patience to go through the nine earlier ones, I endorse the closure as "no consensus", Narky Blert (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|