724:. Whereas HONORIFIC is a style guideline. The move closer's comment above that "COMMONNAME does not appear relevant in the present case" is entirely inaccurate. In fact, we should appeal to COMMONNAME first, and if there is no clear cut candidate there, only then do we move to HONORIFIC. HONORIFIC itself notes this fact with its clause about things that are widely used in English. So there are a few alarm bells on the move closer's motivation here, but not in itself grounds to overturn.
350:. I'm aware that this article's title has also been the subject of past discussion. But in the present case the move was justifiable on two grounds. There was not only a majority favoring the move, but there was also a good case in terms of the style guidelines. Those who opposed the move and wanted the title 'Swami' kept as part of the name cited COMMONNAME as their argument. This does not appear relevant in the present case. There is no indication in the wording of
280:
320:
Vivekananda" in title is much more than only "Vivekananda" in title b) most of the other votes are either repetition of the same point "per above" type comments, b) the arguments (actually one argument) given by the support voters was challenged or rejected, but please note the points given by oppose voters — those was not challenged. c) a list of sources were presented to show it is a "common-name" — that point went unaddressed too. --
198:: Yes, the source they have provided is against their opinion. If you go to Google Books and search with "Vivekananda - Swami", you’ll find only few results where the name is in title. But when you search with "Swami Vivekananda" you get hundreds of results where the full name is in book title. So their source show that the name "Swami Vivekananda" is the common name.
396:"understandable" is not a valid argument. If I write "En WP" or just "Einstein", that will be understandable too. Please note, "Vivekananda" has a different spelling "Vivekanand" and many other spelling variations — "Swami Vivekananda" is the common and accepted name. Please check in Google Books and Google scholar yourself
778:
As a final point though, I'd like to reiterate my uncomfortableness with the wording of the close comment: "Arguments that cite COMMONNAME are not persuasive given the plain language of MOS:HONORIFIC." is a false statement, and the fact that this move is correctly closed should not mean this is seen
319:
Closer was wrong for the following reasons a) he (apparently) did/could not assess the merits of the arguments and moved on counting votes. Only the first vote of the discussion provided some evidence or source — but that was a boomerang — as that source itself showed the number of books with "Swami
286:
Just so we are clear, I have no opinion on this matter and no concern with which way this move review turns out. That being said, what you have identified as the most important question in your opening statement is actually the least important question. Your second question, regarding how the close
772:
Vote count. In the end, the closer is not some kind of all seeing God and it is the arguments made by those commenting, and their numbers that rule the roost. Taking into account the validities I've described above, there are approximately five in favour (including the nominator) and three against
727:
As a third, and somewhat minor invalid thought, I am not very keen on the peppering of responses to every single support vote by those who are opposed. Where there's a valid contention to be made on what the voter said, that's fine. But several of these responses are simply restating the opposer's
178:
If a requested move is restarted based on previous arguments. should we include the arguments of previous RMs too? Do one need to provide dozens (or hundreds) of references each time, or one may expect that as he provided a bunch of reliable references last time, if he says "please see my posts of
208:
Actually it was the only point they gave in the RM and they just kept on saying "Swami" is an honorific without any source. On the other hand that unsourced point was challenged with a list of sources which showed "Swami
Vivekananda" is the common name. I am once again providing few references—
659:
So if we had another person with name V, we would have kept this article at SV, just to disambiguate it easily? What my point is that if a large number of people off-wiki choose to call him SV, we should also reflect the same here. None of the books or others refer to him as V alone. Note the
257:
I too think, WP:HONORIFIC should be read here which states— "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in
English reliable sources without it, it should be included." And there are hundreds and thousands of reliable sources. I end my comment here.
300:
was so seriously flawed that it should be overturned it is likely this review will continue to be largely ignored until it is itself closed. I would suggest you consider collapsing or otherwise refactoring portions of this statement so that it only discusses the closure itself.
611:. Looking at them individually in the context of this case: we must consider V and SV to be equally recognizable; V is incontestibly more concise than SV; V is at least as natural as SV; V is as precise as necessary without being too precise. We do not entitle an article
295:
so what you need to do here is establish that the closer was wrong about the consensus reflected in the previous discussion. As far as I am aware there is no process for reviewing a move review so unless you can present some sort of compelling reason that the
204:: As you know in writing, we start mention the first name (eg. Albert Einstein") and then use just first name or last name to refer him (eg. "Albert went to school" OR "Einstein attended college"). This never means only "Einstein" is his common name.
699:
I think personally I would oppose the move itself if it was still being run. I'm not personally familiar with the subject, but there appears to be sufficient evidence that he is referred to with the honorific in a large majority of cases thus meets
244:
Now
Vrajaprana's analysis— "Swami may refer to any Hindu monk, but it has become attached with and it mainly refers to Swami Vivekananda from the time he assumed the name in 1893. (translated from Bengali)" I am providing sources here, please see
550:
is a guideline and i think policies out rule guidelines. Well... not out rule, but at least hold a higher order of precedence. So if something is a commonname, even if its honorific, it would be our article's title. Correct me if i am wrong.
756:
acknowledges the supposed conflict of policies, and plumps down on the side of HONORIFIC. Personally I would disregard that one, or only count it as a very weak support, as I don't think that's the correct interpretation. The !vote from
429:
488:
719:
debate, I agree with the comment above - whether or not HONORIFIC "defers" to COMMONNAME is irrelevant. COMMONNAME is part of a policy, and goes hand in hand with the naturalness clause also mentioned in
660:
difference in second mention when he is called V, which is more like style of writing and for ease. But he is almost negligibly mentioned as V alone. That point was raised in RM and was not refuted. §§
291:
valid question so far as a move review is concerned. The purpose of this board is to review how move requests were closed, not to argue the requested move all over again. Remember that
255:
I've never heard "Vivekananda" alone in my life. You are challenging titles of Saint
Matthew, Saint Nicholas, Saint Peter, Saint Joseph, etc. Have you ever read WP:COMMONNAME clearly?
842:
I endorse the close because the closer was well within their purview to close as they did. The fact that this review has been open for nearly 2 months is a separate issue.--
423:
728:
opposition without really explaining what was wrong with the support vote. However, I'm sure free-speech should prevail and if people want to comment a lot then so be it!
362:
would be lost and we would start to have very ornamental article titles, purely based on frequency of use of the honorific. The removal of 'Swami' is also encouraged by
482:
366:. That page calls out the title 'Swami' as one of the "commonly used honorifics which should be questioned". I believe that this answers the question raised above by
912:
748:
address COMMONNAME directly and conclude that the form without the honorific still satisfies it. Those arguments are valid. The support !vote from
149:
47:
868:. I think the discussion was leaning in favor, and the calling of a rough consensus in favor was well within the closing admin's discretion. --
37:
547:
798:. The closer was clearly within their purview to close as they did. This discussion has had no comment for a month; it needs to be closed.--
671:
562:
363:
249:
all 1893—1900 newspaper cuttings — very valuable documents — these will show from 1893, he is known as "Swami
Vivekananda." Last time
612:
238:
234:
155:
849:
805:
444:
623:(too concise, insufficiently precise, not recognizable). These are respectively a redirect and a disambiguation page instead.
411:
241:. It was also told there are even airports and railway stations on "Swami Vivekanand/a". Everywhere it is the common name.
503:
42:
470:
696:
Some things I'm thinking about that aren't really valid in this move review discussion, but I'll note them anyway:
405:
627:
is used as the most concise article title that remains unambiguous. Similar arguments underly the application of
250:
21:
667:
588:
584:
580:
558:
401:
464:
226:(note this is the only portal of the world which is created, sponsored an maintained by a state government)
347:
167:
119:
693:- I have a number of conflicting thoughts about this one, so it's quite difficult to pick up the pieces.
451:
888:
648:
460:
99:
17:
846:
802:
762:
716:
701:
592:
572:
539:
383:
355:
306:
758:
587:
calls for five distinct criteria in a good article title, each of which is spelled out elsewhere in
873:
825:
766:
753:
661:
640:
552:
543:
525:
510:
496:
437:
330:
268:
877:
854:
829:
810:
788:
675:
654:
566:
529:
387:
334:
310:
272:
88:
741:
737:
616:
374:) where we would not know what person was indicated if the honorific was left out, but the title
233:
Actually we have source in
Knowledge itself. Please see the list and numbers of scholarly books
417:
784:
608:
604:
600:
596:
115:
72:
80:. There is a clear consensus, that the closure was within "the closing admin's discretion". (
745:
644:
843:
799:
379:
302:
476:
279:
869:
817:
708:. But I didn't !vote during the RM, so this is not directly germane to the move review.
517:
367:
322:
260:
246:
218:
906:
712:
705:
636:
624:
371:
359:
351:
292:
85:
81:
780:
721:
213:
375:
223:
628:
230:
If I start provide sources, it'll be excessive long, but I'll do if needed.
370:, 'Is Swami an honorific?' People sometimes present unusual examples (like
749:
571:
If that is what you think, then you clearly have not read and understood
632:
769:
is applied. Again, that translates to a weak support only in my view.
631:
as in the example of raised above (far too many subjects are called
620:
773:
the move. That's good enough, and the close as move was correct.
752:
echoes those above it, and is hence also valid. The !vote from
733:
Now on to things that I think are relevant to the move review:
182:
Was this RM closure based on vote counting or merit analysis?
219:
Indian Prime
Minster's speech from Indian Government website
293:
consensus is
Knowledge's primary method for decision making
174:
I disagree with this move and want to ask these questions—
185:
And the most important question— is Swami an honorific?
162:
142:
134:
126:
495:
436:
344:
Comment by the closer of the original move discussion:
235:
214:
President of India's speech from his official website
364:
WP:Naming conventions (Indic)#Titles and honorifics
736:Validity of arguments: The support !votes from
378:is quite clear and understandable on its own.
509:
450:
8:
815:No comment is not a reason to "endorse". --
765:, which in turn is an extension of the way
98:The following is an archived debate of the
65:
348:Talk:Swami Vivekananda#Requested move 4
913:Knowledge move review monthly listings
548:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Biographies
7:
891:of the page listed in the heading.
224:Gujarat Government official portal
179:"this" RM," that'll be sufficient?
28:
613:Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta
278:
887:The above is an archive of the
1:
878:11:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
855:05:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
830:08:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
811:13:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
789:14:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
676:10:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
655:19:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
567:07:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
530:03:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
388:20:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
335:03:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
311:20:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
30:
354:that it intends to defer to
273:02:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
615:(not concise, too precise,
575:. It is only a shortcut to
239:only "Vivekananda" in title
89:08:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
929:
779:as a precedent. Thanks —
704:as well as the caveat of
358:. Otherwise the value of
251:User:Bill william compton
894:Please do not modify it.
583:. The previous section,
105:Please do not modify it.
761:appears to be based on
287:was determined, is the
591:. These criteria are:
18:Knowledge:Move review
43:Move review archives
641:Matthew the Apostle
102:of the page above.
742:User:168.12.253.66
738:User:Labattblueboy
284:Administrator note
901:
900:
852:
808:
653:
635:to be unique, so
589:wp:Article titles
585:wp:NAMINGCRITERIA
581:wp:Article titles
202:Last name mention
116:Swami Vivekananda
73:Swami Vivekananda
56:
55:
920:
896:
850:
828:
823:
820:
806:
746:User:LeadSongDog
711:On the supposed
664:
651:
647:
555:
542:is a policy and
528:
523:
520:
514:
513:
499:
455:
454:
440:
346:See my close at
333:
328:
325:
282:
271:
266:
263:
165:
145:
137:
129:
107:
78:Closure endorsed
66:
52:
36:
31:
928:
927:
923:
922:
921:
919:
918:
917:
903:
902:
892:
824:
821:
816:
662:
649:
593:Recognizability
553:
524:
521:
516:
456:
397:
329:
326:
321:
267:
264:
259:
190:Points analysis
161:
160:
154:
148:
141:
140:
133:
132:
125:
124:
103:
64:
57:
50:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
926:
924:
916:
915:
905:
904:
899:
898:
883:
882:
881:
880:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
835:
834:
833:
832:
793:
792:
791:
776:
775:
774:
770:
759:User:Ctg4Rahat
731:
730:
729:
725:
709:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
663:Dharmadhyaksha
554:Dharmadhyaksha
533:
532:
391:
390:
368:User:Titodutta
340:
339:
338:
337:
314:
313:
228:
227:
221:
216:
206:
205:
199:
192:
191:
187:
186:
183:
180:
172:
171:
158:
152:
146:
138:
130:
122:
110:
109:
94:
93:
92:
91:
63:
58:
54:
53:
45:
40:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
925:
914:
911:
910:
908:
897:
895:
890:
885:
884:
879:
875:
871:
867:
864:
863:
856:
853:
847:
845:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
831:
827:
819:
814:
813:
812:
809:
803:
801:
797:
794:
790:
786:
782:
777:
771:
768:
764:
763:WP:OTHERSTUFF
760:
755:
754:User:Snowfire
751:
747:
743:
739:
735:
734:
732:
726:
723:
718:
717:WP:COMMONNAME
714:
713:MOS:HONORIFIC
710:
707:
706:MOS:HONORIFIC
703:
702:WP:COMMONNAME
698:
697:
695:
694:
692:
689:
688:
677:
673:
669:
665:
658:
657:
656:
652:
646:
642:
639:redirects to
638:
637:Saint Matthew
634:
630:
626:
625:Mother Teresa
622:
618:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
590:
586:
582:
579:of a policy,
578:
574:
573:wp:COMMONNAME
570:
569:
568:
564:
560:
556:
549:
545:
541:
540:WP:COMMONNAME
537:
536:
535:
534:
531:
527:
519:
512:
508:
505:
502:
498:
494:
490:
487:
484:
481:
478:
475:
472:
469:
466:
462:
459:
458:Find sources:
453:
449:
446:
443:
439:
435:
431:
428:
425:
422:
419:
416:
413:
410:
407:
403:
400:
399:Find sources:
395:
394:
393:
392:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
372:Mother Teresa
369:
365:
361:
360:MOS:HONORIFIC
357:
356:WP:COMMONNAME
353:
352:MOS:HONORIFIC
349:
345:
342:
341:
336:
332:
324:
318:
317:
316:
315:
312:
308:
304:
299:
294:
290:
285:
281:
277:
276:
275:
274:
270:
262:
256:
252:
248:
242:
240:
236:
231:
225:
222:
220:
217:
215:
212:
211:
210:
203:
200:
197:
194:
193:
189:
188:
184:
181:
177:
176:
175:
169:
164:
157:
151:
144:
136:
128:
121:
117:
114:
113:
112:
111:
108:
106:
101:
96:
95:
90:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
70:
69:
68:
67:
62:
61:2013 November
59:
49:
48:2013 December
46:
44:
41:
39:
33:
32:
23:
19:
893:
886:
865:
795:
767:WP:HONORIFIC
691:Weak endorse
690:
619:), nor just
576:
544:WP:HONORIFIC
506:
500:
492:
485:
479:
473:
467:
457:
447:
441:
433:
426:
420:
414:
408:
398:
343:
298:close itself
297:
288:
283:
254:
243:
232:
229:
207:
201:
196:Their source
195:
173:
104:
97:
77:
71:
60:
38:2013 October
889:move review
645:LeadSongDog
609:Consistency
605:Conciseness
597:Naturalness
577:one section
483:free images
424:free images
376:Vivekananda
100:move review
844:Cúchullain
800:Cúchullain
650:come howl!
629:MOS:SAINTS
380:EdJohnston
303:Beeblebrox
870:SmokeyJoe
601:Precision
907:Category
750:User:Imc
538:I think
86:Armbrust
20: |
866:Endorse
796:Endorse
781:Amakuru
633:Matthew
489:WP refs
477:scholar
430:WP refs
418:scholar
156:archive
135:history
621:Teresa
607:, and
461:Google
402:Google
253:told—
826:Dutta
722:WP:AT
526:Dutta
504:JSTOR
465:books
445:JSTOR
406:books
331:Dutta
269:Dutta
247:these
163:watch
150:links
51:: -->
16:<
874:talk
818:Tito
785:talk
715:vs.
666:§§ {
557:§§ {
518:Tito
497:FENS
471:news
438:FENS
412:news
384:talk
323:Tito
307:talk
289:only
261:Tito
237:and
143:logs
127:edit
120:talk
84:) –
35:<
643:.
617:POV
511:TWL
452:TWL
166:) (
82:NAC
22:Log
909::
876:)
787:)
744:,
740:,
674:}
603:,
599:,
595:,
565:}
551:§§
515:--
491:)
432:)
386:)
309:)
258:--
168:RM
76:–
872:(
851:c
848:/
822:☸
807:c
804:/
783:(
672:C
670:/
668:T
563:C
561:/
559:T
546:/
522:☸
507:·
501:·
493:·
486:·
480:·
474:·
468:·
463:(
448:·
442:·
434:·
427:·
421:·
415:·
409:·
404:(
382:(
327:☸
305:(
265:☸
170:)
159:|
153:|
147:|
139:|
131:|
123:|
118:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.