Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Mkativerata 2

Overview
First edit: Oct 05, 2007 13:21:04 User groups: autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, *, user, autoconfirmed Unique Pages Edited: 9,321 Average edits per page: 2.73 Live edits: 25,451 Deleted edits: 2,080 Total edits (including deleted): 27,531

Main: 12,942 (50.85%) Wikipedia: 6,610 (25.97%) User talk: 2,949 (11.59%) Talk: 1,682 (6.61%) Wikipedia talk: 543 (2.13%) Template: 457 (1.80%)

Discussion following Silktork's oppose

 * That is an horrendous close. At one stroke it completely guts WP:COMMONNAME, with enormous fallout far beyond musical compositions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read the discussion of Beethoven's Sonata quasi una Fantasia carefully. Moonlight Sonata is as as common as wrong, established well after the composer's death. The close, the candidate only confirmed the broad consensus, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Official names and Remember the reader may give you some insight into the thinking behind why Moonlight Sonata is considered more appropriate for Wikipedia than Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven). There's also WP:NATURAL to consider, and WP:CONLIMITED, and probably a whole bunch more. Your point that Moonlight Sonata was "established well after the composer's death" is not relevant to the discussion as Wikipedia article titles are not decided by when the title was created, nor who created them, but by the criteria at WP:Title; however, it's worth considering by your thinking that Beethoven did not call the work "Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven)", and few people do. It's an inelegant title; however, it's not a huge problem, most editors will use Moonlight Sonata in a related article, and that will redirect to the article, and I doubt if anyone is going to rush to change the title, but if there is a move discussion, the community expects an admin to not only understand the relevant policies but also to have the courage to support those policies, not merely follow the mood of the crowd. There were enough comments in the discussion indicating and linking to policy for appropriate Consensus to be carried out: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." The only legitimate concern was consistency which, as pointed out, is "only one of five criteria that we should be considering. Naturalness, conciseness, and recognizability are equally important, and all three are better served by the title 'Moonlight Sonata'".  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  00:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Rubbish, SilkTork. Mkativerata didn't supervote; rather, he prevented the supervote of a group of people who held their single interpretation of COMMONNAME as gospel and wanted any closer to ignore absolutely everyone else's interpretation. Thankfully, Mkativerata didn't. Applying COMMONNAME requires judgment, like all other naming policies do, and that judgment rests in the hands of the community. And those who appeared at that discussion (the opinion of the silent majority really can't be considered until they cease to be silent) overwhelmingly supported the name actually used by scholars. I could go on about how COMMONNAME has been misused for years to mean "what ordinary people on the streets of Boise call something", when that contravenes the higher policy WP:RS, but that's probably a discussion for another place and time. Ultimately the point is that you are holding, at best, a disputable close against the candidate. And I think that's deeply wrong. Heimstern:Away (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Two points: fact and process. Fact: The sonata has names and a common nickname, which should not be the article title but only a redirect, so said Antandrus, DavidRF, Deskford, Eusebeus, Deskford, Kleinzach, Michael Bednarek, Milkunderwood, Opus33, among others. Process: in a bold edit, the established article had been  to the liking of Kauffner, who had not edited it before and seems no expert on the subject. The close made sense in more than one respect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur with what you are saying, but do not agree that the close was an accurate summary of your position. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It was a long discussion, and I don't blame anybody - not even a closer - for not reading it all, as long as the result supports a consensus not by numbers but by argument. Compare Beethoven piano sonatas --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * RE Gerda "as common as wrong, established well after the composer's death" - You don't really mean that, Gerda, do you? We are taliking about something that happened in 1832, and Beethoven died in 1827. "Well after the composer's death"? 5 years is "well after"? And having been used for 182 years, we should get used to it, or shouldn't we? Besides, there's no authentic source given that uses the No. 14, there's only a blog from 2008 (unreliable source, and mirroring Wikipedia perhaps), so aside from anything else, "No. 14" may be also WP:OR. Kraxler (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * what nonsense you're all talking! Grove Online (hardly Randy in Boise) lists it as Sonata no.14, ‘quasi una fantasia’ (‘Moonlight’), with the opus number in the previous column. As if this had much to do with an RfA. --Stfg (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's used for an oppose or two, it has to do with the RfA. - The following has also not to do with the RfA but fit's in the context and the term "nonsense": since when do we follow the Grove? Look at The Flying Dutchman, which the Grove lists as Der fliegende Holländer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say we had to follow Grove's naming, but it is a reliable source and it demonstrates that No. 14 and Moonlight are valid names for this sonata, not OR and not "Randy in Boise". My "as if" expresses disgust that an RfA should be cluttered with personal disagreement with the close of a 2.5-year-old RM of an article about a piano sonata, of all things. It's trite, Gerda. --Stfg (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand that no one want to revisit the argument and go through all that again. But I really do expect a closer to have the patience to read through all the arguments, and I expect expert understanding of both the policy and procedural issues involved and the content being discussed. And if you don't have that, then just don't. Leave it for someone else who does. I expect to see close in which the issues are summarised and a rationale given for the decision, even if it isn't very controversial. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * RE Stfg - First: Your source is behind a pay-wall, and can't be read. Second: The source is a recent on-line publication and might have copied text from Wikipedia. Third: The candidate disappeared for 2.5 years, and now comes back without much recent activity. He can not eat his cake and have it too. Either he says "forget about my previous wiki-life" (until his disappearance in February 2012), then he would be ineligible for adminship, being a less-than-500-edits-newbie; or he says "forget about the wiki-break" (and act as if I'm just back from February 2012), and then he can be challenged for his acts before his disappearance. Fourth: On Wikipedia, articles on piano sonatas are as important as articles on computer games, geographical locations or anything else. It's not good form to make a judgment of value of any type of content. Kraxler (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * RE Gerda - During the discussion WP:NAMINGCRITERIA was quoted several times. It lists 5 items: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness and Consistency, with the peratining explanations. And then: "These should be seen as goals, not as rules". The candidates closing rationale stated that the move was based on the support for Consistency. Fact is that the move flatly contradicted all other four criteria. The match was lost by the supporters with one goal only, the opposers scoring four. Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven) (a title Beethoven himself did not use) is unrecognizable, unnatural, imprecise, and not as concise as Moonlight Sonata. Kraxler (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Kraxler, the source is the online version of The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, the most authoritative such dictionary, and is peer-reviewed. It hasn't copied anything from Wikipedia. Sorry if you cannot access it, but I did quote the relevant part. I didn't comment on the relative merit of articles on piano sonatas (in fact it is my main interest, and I play that one); I merely point out that the choice of article name for a piano sonata is not a big deal in the wider scheme of things. (To avoid this running and running, this will be my last post on this subject.) --Stfg (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * RE Stfg - "...is not a big deal in the wider scheme of things" That's the reason why I wouldn't dare to propose to move it back now. Finally we agree on something. I'm now just curious who invented the sequential numbering of all Beethoven sonatas, and when. Beethoven himself used Opus numbers and every opus began with No. 1... Kraxler (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion following Kraxler's oppose

 * The benefit to not calling it Moonlight Sonata is that then we actually follow reputable sources, not what Randy in Boise calls it. Heimstern:Away (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Rubbish, Heimstern? Silk Tork is quite right up there. Check out the sources given at Moonlight Sonata, you'll see that all of those which can be checked refer to the piece either by the nickname or Opus 27, No. 2. Admins should be able to understand and follow the guidelines, they should not go on truth missions. Kraxler (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As said above: it was not a truth mission but reflected the consensus, by argument, not just head counting. - If you have a child you can possibly take it if it's only called by a nickname, but less so if that nickname appears in official papers. Do you thing serious encyclopedias give more than a redirect under the nickname? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Serious encyclopedias would possibly call it Piano Sonata Opus 27 No 2, but there aren't any other serious encyclopedias except Wikipedia, or are there? Let's just continue the discussion up there at Silk Tork's vote, to keep it together, or move it to the talk page. Kraxler (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The sonata and its article names
(a few facts for those who don't have the time to read it all)


 * 21 Nov 2002 created
 * 7 Sep 2013 move requested to Moonlight Sonata
 * 15 Sep 2013 moved on a consensus of 2:1
 * 29 December 2013 requested to be moved back
 * 13 January 2014 closed by Eusebeus, reverted by NW
 * 14 January 2014 closed by Mkativerata, restoring a status with a long tradition and the support of the project members

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I noticed this and I wanted to mention that a) your years are off by two? b) the 14 Jan close was something like 20 : 7 : 2, so less than 3 : 1 consensus. I'd personally never say anything below the 80% threshold was "overwhelming consensus". --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You are right about the years, other than the first. - I didn't count, I said that the move to Moonlight Sonata was bold and should have been reverted and discussed right away. Did I say "overwhelming" anywhere? Not my style ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)