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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chixdiggit → Chixdiggit! — The exclamation point is part of the name - check out every album cover (it's an important signifier of their carefree attitude. Dude!) Wikkitywack (talk) 08:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The exclamation mark is used on the album covers, but it looks like the majority of references to the band don't include it as part of the name - even the official website (see Internet Archive version) didn't use it. Peter E. James (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• That's because you can't have an exclamation point in an address (right?) As a counterexample to the "majority", check out the AllMusic artist page. (And keep in mind, as encyclopedians we should be more concerned about the artist's intentions than whether a bunch of websites have or haven't been paying attention to proper punctuation.) Wikkitywack (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was referring to the text of the page, not the URL - scroll to the "March 8, 2006" and "February 21, 2006" posts - also the album covers page. Peter E. James (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I know - that was more of a question (you can't use punctuation in URLs, right? If you could, they might have...) Fact is, the official website did use the exclamation mark (see above the Message Board on the left side). Casual references to the band in a blog-style newsfeed can hardly be used as evidence against official punctuation. Look at any band officially without the "The". Eagles, Eels, Grateful Dead, Faces, Pixies, etc. etc. It would be perfectly acceptable to say "The Eagles love the Canmore Hotel" for the sake of rhythm and context in a sentence, whilst knowing that the official band name is "Eagles". What I see on the album covers page is more evidence for "Chixdiggit!" The formative Humped demo and "Best Hung Carrot..." 7" lack the exclamation point (at least initially - it appears "Best Hung Carrot..." was re-released under the Chixdiggit! moniker in 2000). Everything else has an exclamation point. Now, what about the other parts of my statement above? Wikkitywack (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The text alongside the album covers has "Chixdiggit "Chixdiggit!" CD/LP", where the exclamation mark is in the album title but not in the band name, and "Chixdiggit "Born on the First of July" CD/LP" - it's the same for the other albums. Some websites always use the exclamation mark, some never use it, and there are others that don't include it consistently. It seems to be an unnecessary part of the name. Peter E. James (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know how you can say that when we have the best sort of primary evidence at hand: what the band consistently call themselves on their album covers. Remember, this is how they chose, again and again, to present themselves to the world. We could argue endlessly about secondary sources ranging from review websites to text on their own website (I still think my "Eagles" vs. "The Eagles" example is pertinent on this point...) - which is why I think it behooves an encyclopedia to stick to primary sources. Wikkitywack (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose MOS:TM playful punctuation. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• You're gonna have to point out the part of MOS:TM that prohibits "playful punctuation"... 'cause I can't find it. It's part of their identity. Wikkitywack (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the example given for " [ yellow tail ] " 184.144.160.156 (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparing [ yellow tail ], which is a pretty clear case of a stylistic choice that has no meaning in and of itself (not something I would argue for, btw), to the addition of a common punctuation mark that does have significance (signifying in this case a carefree rockin' attitude) doesn't seem right to me... Wikkitywack (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. In most writing the exclamation mark seems to be omitted. While we strive for the common touch here, where there's a choice between a promotional and a scholarly tone, let's go with the scholarly. Andrewa (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Again, I'm confused... "Scholarly" means leaning more on primary sources, does it not? How much more primary can you get than album covers? I personally think it's fine to refer to them as Chixdiggit in a sentence -- because it might get cloying after a while -- but the official name should be with an exclamation point (see my response to Peter E. James above about "Eagles" vs. "the Eagles"). Btw - what's "most writing"? You seem to have conveniently overlooked my AllMusic example above... Wikkitywack (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a start to getting on top of this confusion, I suggest you read or reread Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, particularly noting that we strongly prefer secondary sources. You might also read or reread WP:NPA and WP:AGF before again accusing anyone of having conveniently overlooked anything, noting that none of these policies are regarded as negotiable. All the best. Andrewa (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was assuming good faith. If I sound a little testy, it's because nobody in this conversation has yet commented on my above points (including AllMusic artist's page and the Eagles example). I'm not sure WP:PRIMARY applies to this situation. It seems to be about gathering information about an article and doesn't say anything about article titles. So, my frustration arises from a seeming lack of focus on this conversation... every time I bring up a point, I get redirected to a "rules" page that's only tangentially related to the topic at hand. Cheers, Wikkitywack (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree with most of this. I can't see how conveniently overlooked can be read other than to imply deliberate deception, or attempted deception, on my part. I don't think anyone would be put onside by such a line of argument. See below for why this matters.
    • As to the problem of others not reading or responding to your arguments, I'm afraid I see it the other way around. We're certainly trying to, and it's very frustrating that you don't seem to see this.
    • To arrive at consensus, the trick is to impress those with whom you disagree, rather than some imagined bystander, and this is the very opposite of parliamentary debate. See also WP:rhetoric. Does that help? Andrewa (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry for rubbing you the wrong way, but please do not question my intent. I simply meant that you did not comment on it, thereby overlooking a strong counterexample (and remember, you accused me of lacking a "scholarly tone" - if I read your statement correctly). Anyway, I've scribbled out the offending word. As to your second remark, I still don't feel you've addressed my arguments in the slightest and are, in fact, focused on attacking me instead of my argument - which is, I believe, a (mild) form of ad hominem. What do you say I overlook the condescending tone of your final remark and we call it even? Wikkitywack (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just trying to help. No, I have not questioned your intent, nor accused (you) of lacking a scholarly tone; That would of course be a personal attack, and I haven't done it. My not commenting on any particular argument doesn't mean I have overlooked it, it may instead mean that I think others have already answered it adequately. Andrewa (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per MOS:TM. AllMusic appears to be the only major secondary source that uses the exclamation point; most news sources omit it. Powers ^T 00:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again... (I would appreciate it if you at least referenced my above conversation with 184.144.160.156 concerning MOS:TM so I don't have to repeat myself...) In short: where does MOS:TM prohibit common punctuation if it is appropriate? Also, do you, like Andrewa above, believe that Wikipedia should "strongly prefer secondary sources" to primary ones, citing WP:PRIMARY? Wikkitywack (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're looking for a direct citation that specifically addresses exclamation points, you'll be disappointed. But MOS:TM does say "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words." An exclamation point clearly falls into one of the first two categories. Second of all, yes, Wikipedia absolutely should favor secondary sources; we are a tertiary source by definition and we report what secondary sources say. We can use primary sources for some purposes, but we rely on secondary sources to do any interpretation needed of the primary sources. In this case, we must refer to secondary sources regarding whether the exclamation point is used; aside from AllMusic, the vast majority of secondary sources omit it, which is a strong indication that we have no need to make an exception to our MOS for this article. Powers ^T 01:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we relist[edit]

I cannot close this RM, as I'm involved and it's a particularly controversial one. It needs an uninvolved admin IMO. But I note that the RM backlog is large and growing, and it seems to me that we have a rough consensus against the move.

Three contributors have voted against, giving various reasons. One other has given reasons against but has not explicitly voted. And there has been vigorous discussion between these contributors and the proposer, who remains unconvinced.

Three options that I can see:

• Close as rough consensus against. That's what I recommend.
• Close as unlikely to reach consensus to move. The only problem with that is, given the tone of discussion above, I fear that a further RM will soon be raised. It would be better IMO to lay this to rest.
• Relist. That's the soft option, but again I'm doubtful it will achieve anything other than to occupy more time, and generate more heat.

Interested in other opinions as always, but if you're an admin thinking of closing this one, please consider remaining "uninvolved". Andrewa (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's clear there's no consensus to make the move; whether there is consensus to retain the current name is a little iffier. Powers ^T 11:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree... But that doesn't really answer the question...! If it must be relisted and/or closed no consensus I guess it must, but IMO it's just wasting time and generating unproductive heat. Andrewa (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.