Open main menu

Requested move 15 August 2019Edit

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: not moved. No consensus for the page moves at this time, at least in this local discussion. As a side remark, I've seen quite a few of these requested moves before. Consistency is always ideal, but many separate RMs isn't the ideal way to form consensus on how these types of articles should be titled. I'd recommend a wider RFC on the subject if broader change is desired. (closed by non-admin page mover) Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 01:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)



– Per WP:NATURALDIS. The discussions at Talk:Statue of Benjamin Franklin (Stanford University), Talk:Bust of Benjamin Harrison, and Talk:Statue of Guy Lafleur show a general preference for the "Statue of XXX" format over the "subject (medium)" format. I should also note, there's an ongoing discussion here about the naming conventions for public statues. While some details are still being ironed out, I'm confident disambiguating by "Statue of X...", "Bust of X...", etc, will emerge as a preferred title over using a subject name then disambiguating by medium or location unless there's good reason. To the best of my knowledge, none of the nominated articles are about sculptures with multiple copies, so no need to worry about "Statue of X..." vs. "Statues of X...", which is still being discussed. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Not really, there's nothing wrong with these titles, and better that some of the other ones return to their actual names. The hockey ones, for instance, should have really been kept where they were. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Nope, didn't check all the real names. If the real name is presently in the title, then they should stay as is. Otherwise the suggested wording is fine. Setting these precedents may well come back at the project when someone cites them in wanting to move such things as Moses to 'Statue of Moses'. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
    My question was about how one determines the real name; you assume that the existing titles reflect this real name and that the proposed titles are moving away from it, but what is the basis for this assumption? Inscriptions for public portrait sculpture allow the viewer to identify the subject and are not necessarily evidence for an official title. The heading "Alexander Lyman Holley" on this web page performs the same function. Other reliable sources may have another variation again. Michelangelo's Moses isn't a public portrait sculpture. Ham II (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
    • We should do our best to determine the real name and use that as the title, disambiguated if necessary. Making up a descriptive name for a title is fine for made up topics like “List of whatever”, but not for any topic that has a real name. —В²C 17:35, 25 August 2019 (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.

Moved after RM?Edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Another Believer, am I missing something (besides a bank account which would sink an elephant)? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, Nope! But I am being bold and moving this article so there's more consistency amongst similar articles. The above discussion closed 'not moved', but other recent discussions suggest my move is appropriate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Hmmmm, okay. Well, then please move it and any others back. But you do have me at a disadvantage as I never "report things to higher authorities" on Wikipedia. Another option is to take the results of this RM and boldly move (where no move has gone before) the previous moves of real name works of art back to their originally correct names. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Randy Kryn, I don't intend to move this article back, sorry. Actually, I've been moving many statue articles recently and plan to continue. I'm tired of the inconsistencies. Also, you're using the "real name" argument but this source does not suggest "Jean Drapeau" is an official title. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Not a very Wikipedian thing to do after a recent RM, maybe unique and quite bold for sure. As I said, I don't report things to the Wikipedia admins or legal busybodies, and I won't revert out of respect for you, but please rethink these moves in a quiet or noisy moment of retrospection. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel my move is "not a very Wikipedian thing to do", but in some ways ignoring all rules is a Wikipedian thing to do. Thanks for not reverting, and for the record, I respect you and your work as well. But on this issue, I disagree with you and fully intend to keep moving articles to the 'bust of X'/'statue of x' format. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
True, it is Wikipedian in a way. Ignoring a close of a recent RM is surely ignoring all rules, and makes for an interesting discussion. The source you provided seems to indicate that either the name of the statue is accurate or provides the real name. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Born2cycle and Ham II: Not sure the pings are needed, but just a general FYI since you both contributed to the above discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Another Believer. Yes, please revert your moves that are contrary to this and any other RM decisions. After doing so, you are free to start another RM presumably defended based on other related recent moves. But WP works on consensus, and consensus for the moves you made is at best unclear, but arguably (based on this RM decision) contrary to them. That's why we have RM discussions. Unlike Randy Kryn, I don't have a personal rule against reporting inappropriate behavior, and will do so if you don't revert. Hopefully that can be avoided. --В²C 16:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Born2cycle, Sorry, but is my behavior really that inappropriate? I was bold and moved a page I created, and even the closer of the group RM said "consistency is always ideal". Can't we just have a discussion here and now about the best possible title for this article without worrying about reverts and opening yet another RM? (For the record, I'm not refusing to revert, I'm just asking if a local discussion is actually a better use of our collective time.) I'm also hoping User:Ham II might be willing to weigh in here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it can be worked out here. My opinion is that, when possible to discern it, that an artwork's real names should be used in titles. The source provided above gives an alternate that maybe is best for this one article. The RM discussion seems to have been going in that direction when it was closed, to use the name of the work if known. That it's your article gives weight to your choice (again, in my opinion) which is why we shouldn't make too much of a dust up here. Personally it seems to me that 'Statue of' is just going to make a long list of Search topics that will be lost to readers who may not wade through a few hundred 'Statue of...' search results. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No, it can't be worked out here, because this is not a formal RM discussion. While titles can be changed without RM discussion, that's for changes that are not only not controversial, but also not even potentially controversial. Please read WP:RM. That ship has sailed here, long ago. The controversy about this and related statue titles is well established - so they must be resolved with formal RM discussions. The reasons for this are many, but most importantly so we can ensure participation from enough of the community to be reasonably sure our decision is consistent with community consensus. Please revert. --В²C 17:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    Born2cycle,   Moved ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Requested move 9 September 2019Edit

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. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)



Jean Drapeau (sculpture)Statue of Jean Drapeau – Per WP:NATURALDIS. The discussions at Talk:Statue of Benjamin Franklin (Stanford University), Talk:Bust of Benjamin Harrison, and Talk:Statue of Guy Lafleur show a general preference for the "Statue of XXX" format over the "subject (medium)" format. I should also note, there's an ongoing discussion here about the naming conventions for public statues. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose [Edit:Neutral per below, but will watch the discussion to check if the "real name" shows up], per the August discussion (deja vu, is that a cat?), as the present name is the real name of the statue and provides all of the title information needed. WP:NATURALDIS doesn't seem to apply at all, as the amb (sculpture) provides the separation from readers who may think that poor Drapeau himself has been flash frozen and placed on a pedestal. The name of the statue might also be Monument à Jean Drapeau from a source provided above. But either way, if a real name of an artwork (film, play, painting, sculpture, etc.) is discernible from the sources then that is what an encyclopedic article should be named. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Good find. Well, if the name that the artist named the statue can't be located then you're probably right, and it shouldn't be too far afield to change it. My concern is that the proper names of statues which artists name, and they continue to abide by that name, will be titled simply to conform with a non-bending 'Statue of...' branding without full research to see if the artworks intended name can be found. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    Randy Kryn, I understand your concern, but I'd rather see "Statue of..." used by default and editors encouraged to demonstrate use of italics is appropriate per coverage/consensus. If you're sympathetic to moving this article, I hope you'll consider striking your 'oppose' vote then. Thanks again for weighing in here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, for WP:CONSISTENCY across article titles for public portrait sculptures of individuals. I've seen no evidence yet for Jean Drapeau, italicised, being the sculpture's "real name". Ham II (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2019 (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.
Return to "Statue of Jean Drapeau" page.