Talk:And Yet It Moves

Infoxbox

A picture needs to be inserted in the top right along with information about release time, developer etc. This is called Infobox VG, see for instance Diablo II source code. I can't figure out how to upload a picture.

The requirements

This section may need a clean-up since I just copied it from the Steam page. Deleet (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

More work

Why is this not linked to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pur_si_muove! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.67.122 (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's linked in the lead. --MASEM (t) 20:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Assesment

I assessed this article as per request and found it to meet the c-class critera. My only suggestion would be that in the gameplay section, each gameply dynamic be decribed seperately, without using spicific exameples from the game. 16bitz

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was Not moved: no concensus after 38 days and 53 kilobytes of arguing. The current situation, with only 2 meanings (And Yet It Moves and And yet it moves) and each with a hatlink pointing to the other and to Eppur si muove, seems adequate to me. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

---

And Yet It Moves → And Yet It Moves (video game) – I don't believe the video game is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of "And Yet It Moves", especially when taking into account PRIMARYTOPIC's "long-term significance/educational value" clause. I think it far more likely that people searching an encyclopedia for "And Yet It Moves" would be looking for Galileo's famous phrase, Eppur si muove (translated into English as "And Yet It Moves"). Flicking through the first few pages of gbooks and gscholar, I can't find any references to the video game, but plenty to the phrase. Jenks24 (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose; the game is in Title Caps, the phrase is not. I would support retargetting And yet it moves → Eppur si muove (translated into English as "And yet it moves", not as "And Yet It Moves"), though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  I disagree that capitalisation is enough to disambiguate in this case. Yes, per our MoS the phrase is in sentence case, but many reliable sources don't use sentence case for the phrase (check out this ngram) and we cannot expect casual readers to be familiar with our MoS. Jenks24 (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  Click through to the specific instances used in that ngram, and you'll find that the phrase is Title Cased when it's the title of a book or chapter or other, and sentence cased when used in running text. WP:PRECISION doesn't expect casual readers to be familiar with our MoS: casual readers can be expected to search on wholly uncapitalized search terms (and thus would end up at the phrase if the redirect is retargeted) and to be assisted by the hatnotes that need to be used whenever caps variations lead to different articles. There's no indication that capitalization isn't engouh to disambiguate in this case. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  There is the evidence of my own situation, at least. Other sophisticated readers, writers, and editors are surely in a similar situation. We too easily lose sight of such basic facts. Noetica^Tea? 22:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

  I also note that capitalization is enough to disambiguate Eppur Si Muove from Eppur si muove, and our casual readers are none the worse for wear. - JHunterJ (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  What evidence can you show for those claims, JHJ? Surely some readers would never suspect that Eppur Si Muove is a "the third full-length album by the German symphonic metal band Haggard", or anything remotely like it. What objection can there be to removing such impediments to access and clarity? Only pedantic, rule-bound ones. Let's do without those! Noetica^Tea? 22:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

  Ah, yes, the old standby call for "hard evidence" from the opposing side when you have presented none yourself. By all means, if you're ready to change the rules, go change the rules as suggested every time this comes up, but so far there is no agreement that recognizing the difference between phrases that do indeed differ by capitalization is an impediment to access or clarity. I'm only voting per current consensus guidelines. As to evidence, I point to the continued existence of the encyclopedia, and the continued survival of its readership, despite the hardship of Eppur Si Muove not leading to Eppur si muove. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

  Answered below. Refuse to count immediate, detailed, and personal evidence if you insist. That's your prerogative. It is not the way I choose, however. Noetica^Tea? 00:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

  I call your personal evidence with my personal evidence, and raise you the Wikipedia consensus guidelines. Irrationally dismiss any anecdotal evidence that doesn't agree with you if you insist. That's your prerogative. It is not the way Wikipedia works, however. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

What? Capitalization matters in a google search? I knew diacriticals mattered, but are you sure about that one? At any rate, I would guess that most people don't bother with caps in a search, they just type in whatever is the fewest keyclicks most likely to turn up a result, google does well enough even with typos. And you have to figure a lot of people type one-handed since they are either eating or drinking with the other hand and don't want get their snacks smeared all over the keyboard. Caps does not strike me as a particularly reliable way to search, or to set up titles, either one. Neotarf (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

To what Google search are you referring? In any event, titles in Wikipedia are case sensitive (and case distinct), with the exception of the first character. iPod is exactly the same as IPod, in the technical guts of Wikipedia, but Red Meat and Red meat are different. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - MOS is clear that the phrase Sentence case is sufficient distinguishable from the game's Camel Case. The hatnote to point to the phrase on this page is completely appropriate. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • No, Masem. That is not camel case. Noetica^Tea? 00:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Ok, fine, Title Case, or whatever you want to call it. Point is, there are two different forms of capitalization, and MOS supports having capitalization disambiguate topics. --MASEM (t) 12:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. In an encyclopedia, the great Galilean utterance clearly has precedence over such ephemera as video games. Capitalisation is worthless as a disambiguator, especially here. Narrow insistence on one's interpretation of titling guidelines is harmful to the Project, if confusing or vague titles result. Items such as novels and games are named with famous phrases precisely to trade on their fame. We should not acquiesce under pressure from that commercial imperative, which is alien to the goals of Wikipedia. Noetica^Tea? 00:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

  "Capitalisation is worthless as a disambiguator" -- you need to take this up at Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Until then, the consensus is that capitalization is worthwhile as a disambiguator. Narrow insistence on one's disagreement with the consensus titling guidelines is harmful to the project. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Capitalisation is worthless as a disambiguator", yes. I stand by that, for most cases. Here is the most relevant excerpt from WP:TITLE, with my underlining:

Titles of distinct articles may differ only in their detail. Many such differences involve capitalization, separation or non-separation of components, or pluralization: MAVEN and Maven; Red Meat and Red meat; Sea-Monkeys and SeaMonkey. While each name in such a pair may already be precise and apt, a reader who enters one term might in fact be looking for the other; so use appropriate disambiguation techniques, such as hatnotes or disambiguation pages, to help readers find the article they want.

As editors here may be aware, the policy for article titles has just been the subject of action at ArbCom. But what I cite just now has stood, and stands. This is indeed a case in which capitalisation does not do the job. Many readers will expect an aphorism (or the name of an aphorism) to be in title case. Consider "the Cogito", for example. There is nothing narrow about my insistence here; it is not disagreement with a "consensus titling guideline". Other material can be found at WP:TITLE to contradict what I say; but to that extent, WP:TITLE contradicts itself. In such circumstances we must work from broader principles. That is exactly what I am doing. I am appealing directly to the needs of readers, which in this case are easily met with no collateral disadvantage. The objections to doing this are based on flawed, inconsistent, and notoriously contested policy provisions.

"Precision" is only one provision in current titling policy, and it is a vague and contested one; it does not stand alone, and in this case the title is not sufficiently precise through its capitalisation anyway. Uncertainty is obviously possible, and easily avoided.

Noetica^Tea? 22:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

So exactly what is wrong here if the user, seeking the phrase, enters it as (capitalized as contrary to most normal English writing) "And Yet It Moves", and discovers an article about a video after the hatnote pointing to the correct phrase? --MASEM (t) 22:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly many things are wrong with legalistically avoiding the plainest, most helpful, and readiest means of helping all readers. For example, very many readers (perhaps most readers) find Wikipedia articles through a Google search. Google is insensitive to case. If the phrase used for the search is "and yet it moves", the Wikipedia article that turns up highest in the list is the one for the video game, with this bold heading in the Google results:

And Yet It Moves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the search as I did it just now (correctly with quotes), immediately under that came this result:

Eppur si muove - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The phrase then occurs in a short excerpt from the lead that follows the bold heading. In many cases it will not be shown at all in such an excerpt, and the article must be retrieved and examined to find the connection. A waste of time that is easily avoided.

Capitalisation is rarely helpful for anyone in such a search. It requires analysis, and can lead to entirely useless dead ends. Wikipedia should not bow in service to ephemeral and ultimately commercial ends, but give priority to what is of enduring cultural importance.

Noetica^Tea? 23:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, the fact that if a user, externally, searches on the phrase "and yet it moves", and clicks the first returned link from Google that points to WP, being this page (the video game), but knowingly wants to get to the phrase, the hatnote provides one extra click to get there. They're satisfied. It is not that we are obscuring the phrase entirely with the video game. So the argument breaks down on that factor. --MASEM (t) 05:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

That's right, Masem. We inconvenience an unknown but probably considerable number of readers by diverting them through a page concerned with distracting ephemera, wasting their time, patience, bandwidth, and goodwill toward Wikipedia – for what? A simple addition to the title, and that problem is solved. At what cost? Negligible! With what downside? Hardly any that can be discerned. Noetica^Tea? 07:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Inconvenience, but not block. Huge difference. I would agree that there would be a problem if there was no way for us on this page about the video game to point a wayward searcher to the right place, that the video game should reliquinsh the title to the phrase. But we easily have that means to doing so. And to be honest, going to google and searching for "and yet it moves", the two line summary under each entry for WP is sufficient enough to know which is which. If I'm too lazy to do that and just hit the first one or "I'm Feeling Lucky", its my own fault I have to click once more to get to the right page. Oh woe is me. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Noetica, what hard evidence can you show for those claims? -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The best sort: immediate personal experience, in this present case. Same for many other editors here too, I'm certain: if they will simply view the matter from their own initial epistemic stance rather than through a filter of unhelpful doctrine. Noetica^Tea? 00:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You misspelled "worst sort" (anecdotal is the lowest tier of evidence). And if we're calling on the support of the silent masses, I'm more certain that my view is the same for many other editors here too. And what's more, they were unsilent long enough to form a consensus for the guidelines. But seriously, do you have any hard evidence you can show for those claims? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no way to determine how many keyclicks it takes to get from a google search to the Galileo phrase, since the current google search does not provide any indication that Wikipedia contains information about anything beside the app. There will be an INFINITE number of keyclicks needed to access the information since no one will click on it. In fact, the whole first page of hits is about the app. Neotarf (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• The third hit on a google search here is the phrase. Yes, most of the rest is the game, but that's because in english the game is the more common usage today. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • In some foreign language and with no reference to Galileo. I have never heard of this game, but the name of it seems to be based on this more famous, and probably more enduring, Galileo quotation. Neotarf (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The primary topic should be either the original quotation or a disambiguation page. Neotarf (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

  Why, when the quotation is not Title Capped? -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

  Try doing the search with and without caps. You get exactly the same results. Google just doesn't care about caps.

  Nobody seems to be in disagreement that the Galileo quotation is the primary topic, and yet the game comes up every time. Neotarf (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

  AFAIK, WP titling isn't search engine optimization. Try doing the search on Wikipedia (there should be a search box in the upper right) with and without caps. You get different results. Wikipedia cares about caps. I disagree that the Galileo quotation is the primary topic for "And Yet It Moves". I agree that the quotation is the primary topic for "And yet it moves", but that's not affected by this move request. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

  Who on earth uses Wikipedia's search engine? But yes, search engines are a valid titling consideration, as they should be. WP:AT "Naturalness – Titles are those that readers are likely to look for or search with ..." Neotarf (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  You're supporting my point. Your quotation says "search with" (note the Search box on the WP page you're currently on) and does not mention search engines (i.e., they are not a valid titling consideration -- we don't do search engine optimization). "I don't use" is not the same as "who on earth uses". -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

  Who says we should exclude consideration of search facilities outside of Wikipedia? Google loves Wikipedia. Arguably, more people find their way to Wikipedia articles via Google than by any other route. In the great majority of cases Google does its level best to promote the most relevant WP article to the top of any results list. It is absurd to ignore such facts of life; and it is absurd to work against this enormously advantageous situation in our titling choices. If it is not accounted for in policy and guidelines, it most certainly ought to be. When the time is right for rational discussion at WT:TITLE, I'll raise it there. Meanwhile, we are restricted to RM discussions to promote good sense and respect for the genuine needs of real users, as opposed to mindless and insular rule-following. Noetica^Tea? 22:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

  No one says that. Google searches will land you at the page you seek. Or are you proposing some sequence in which a user uses a search engine to find a Wikipedia article and then instead selects an article other than the one he or she intended? It is indeed absurd to ignore the facts of life. Google will show results of a search case insensitively, including articles on Wikipedia that are titled case sensitively (as in this case). In the meantime, please assume good faith and refrain from calling those who disagree with you mindless. It is also possible to mindfully follow rules, rules which were formulated for the benefit of real users, not insular editors. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

  I do not say that any editor is mindless or insular; I say that certain practices are mindless and insular. We can all slip into bad practices, no matter what our intentions or dispositions are. As for Google, it can only retrieve from Wikipedia what we make available to it. It will insensitively show (highlighted as a bold heading, on a results page) a capped title or an uncapped one. It will somewhat insensitively show also "video game" if that is in the title – but only if we sensitively include that, out of consideration for the needs of real readers, and against the interests of no one. Anywhere. Ever. Noetica^Tea? 23:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

  Using the most recognizable form of the name will cause more readers to click on the corresponding result. This, in turn, will boost that result's Google ranking. So I don't see any advantage to SEOing the titles. Name-only titling is just the way reference works do it. Anything else looks unprofessional. So I wouldn't support adding explanatory material even if I thought the idea actually worked. Kauffner (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

  As I have shown you elsewhere Kauffner, and as you continue resolutely to ignore, it's not that simple. Britannica manages to get things like "Fort Worth (Texas, United States)" to the head of the list when you do a Google search on "Fort Worth" Britannica; and you get "Fort Worth (Texas, United States)" when you search Britannica online with its internal engine – which gives an index entry. If the video game "And Yet It Moves" had an article in Britannica, what do you think it would be indexed under? How do you think that article would be headed in a Google results page? Noetica^Tea? 01:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

  It's possible, even likely, that Britannica's internal style guidelines and naming conventions (and inclusion of an index) differs from Wikipedia's. Google orders listings based on its proprietary algorithms. Let them, and let Google users read the snippets included to determine which article (if any) they want to load from that list. Searching Google for "and yet it moves" Wikipedia gets me the video game article, the image of the video game cover, and the Galileo article as the first three hits. The article on the quotation itself is apparently not important/popular/other-Google-criteria enough to hit the top. A Google search on "and yet it moves" phrase Wikipedia gives me the phrase article first, then Galileo, and then an Enigma album. Everything's working fine. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

  JHunterJ:

  "It's possible, even likely, that Britannica's internal style guidelines and naming conventions (and inclusion of an index) differs from Wikipedia's."

  Of course. We know that. I've shown how that works.

  "... let Google users read the snippets included to determine which article (if any) they want to load from that list."

  You mean, do that and nothing more? Ignore what we know for certain about Google searches, because there is also a lot that we don't know? Do you realise that a Google search simply on "and yet it moves" yields only one Wikipedia page in the first hundred hits: the page for this ephemeral video game? As the seventh hit in that hundred? Do you realise that the first in that list to mention Galileo is hit number 19? Unless Wikipedia chooses an informative title for this video game article, and also for the article about the Galileo quote, that's how things will stay. And the encyclopedic topic of great and enduring interest – the very topic that inspired the name of that video game, which hijacks a phrase of great human importance – remains buried under an avalanche of short-term commercial touting.

  "The article on the quotation itself is apparently not important/popular/other-Google-criteria enough to hit the top [of a list for a search tailored for Wikipedia retrieval]."

  Right. Because of how this encyclopedia, as opposed to Britannica (which has no article on the Galileo quote, nor on the video game) chooses its titles.

  "A Google search on "and yet it moves" phrase Wikipedia gives me the phrase article first, then Galileo, and then an Enigma album."

  Sure! And the naive reader is going to do that?

  "Everything's working fine."

  So you say. But nothing that you say supports that conclusion. Why do I bother to write analytically here, in the interest of readers? If you are not in the least responsive to argument, why pretend to have a discussion toward rational titles for articles, in which new ideas are introduced in articulated detail?

  The inquisitors themselves were immune to abundant evidence and close reasoning from Galileo. They would not – or could not – listen to the careful demonstration of a new and striking truth. Think about it. Alternatively, do not. There's nothing I can do about that.

  Noetica^Tea? 12:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

  Noetica, if you are not in the least responsive to argument, why pretend to have a discussion? Obviously, you are defining "responsive to argument" as "agree with me". I have been participating in the argument, such that it is; pretending that my responses aren't responses is silly. No indication has been put forward that any article is misplaced or that the readership is being under-served by the current names. Several anecdotes and theoretical problems have been proposed, but without anything solid, I confess it is difficult to respond solidly. What you can do, however, and I've pointed this out before, is assume good faith in your fellow editors, rather than obliquely cast them as inquisitors. Think about that. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

  O, I think about it all, JHJ. Long and hard. When I find something of substance, I process it and make a response. If I have missed anything substantial here, please let me know – at my talkpage. There is obviously no point attempting genuine engagement here, when detailed head-on responses are flatly ignored by Kauffner and captiously dismissed by you. You expect people to do a Google search, after the fact, using the term "phrase"? Yes, "phrase" is there in the lead for the Galilean article and not for the video game article. But we have all forgotten in this discussion that "and yet it moves" is for many readers not a phrase at all, since they will only use it in a strict linguistic sense. Should we disadvantage those readers? Has anyone here thought of this? I doubt it. Well? All such quirks and unpredicted stumbling-blocks can be avoided, if the existing policy and guideline provision are read accurately, and applied with discretion and good sense. Nothing in WP:TITLE justifies reliance on capitalisation in all cases. If anything there is read that way, that is a double sort of blind rule-following: not reading the rules well, and not applying them with the larger picture and the broader goals of Wikipedia in view. I stand for those broader goals, which enjoy the most solid consensus of all. Others will decide what they stand for.

  Noetica^Tea? 23:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

  Link to that most solid consensus, please. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure:

"The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."

Wikimedia Mission Statement, first sentence. It applies to this encyclopedia, right? And concerning this encyclopedia (as opposed to this register of hot video games), note these specifics in that sentence: educational content; effectively and globally. When consensus for the Mission Statement is challenged with evidence that it is compromised and parlous, as consensus for the content of WP:TITLE has been in a recent ArbCom case, let me know at my talkpage. OK?

For good measure:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents; that kind of content should be contributed instead to the Wikimedia sister projects.

First of the Five pillars. Note: encyclopedia. Not an inventory of currently available commercial products. Not an advertising platform. Not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Noetica^Tea? 01:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• What? No. The Galileo quotation comes up on the first page? Are you sure? For me, it does not come up at all, searching with or without quotation marks. And one thing everyone agrees on is that the Galileo quote is the primary topic. The only way I can find the Galileo quote now is through the dab link at the video game page.

  Whatever SEO dynamics are assumed to be at work here are obviously not work; both articles average about 80 hits a day and yet the one (primary) article does not come up at all. Everything is NOT working fine. It's broke. Neotarf (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

  The article on the Galileo quote spidered under the new title within the last 24 hours, so things are still bouncing around. Kauffner (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

  Ah. I have changed the link on the "Galileo affair" article, just to give the bots something new to think about. Neotarf (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

  That only leaves the question of ... whatever it is that Hunter and Noetica can't seem to agree on. Hunter seems to be saying that we should be using geeky devices like punctuation or caps for disambiguation, but Noetica seems to be saying that just because the Wikipedia software can support the usage doesn't mean other software (like Google) or for that matter, humans, will recognize it. This is a device that has been coming up more and more, and probably should be discussed with a wider audience. Recently someone proposed using ! to disambiguate two articles. I suppose if you wanted, you could use "and yet it movesʹ", "and yet it movesʺ" or any number of other characters or symbols to disambiguate. Neotarf (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

  Not quite. I am saying that we should use the Wikipedia guidelines and policies, such as WP:AT and its section on WP:PRECISION. I have also said repeatedly to Noetica that changing those policies and guidelines would be the correct outlet for his/her disagreement with them, rather than trying to ignore them on every move request that comes up. The recent proposal for punctuation isn't relevant to this move discussion, but could also be hammered out at WP:AT as needed. I'll continue to work with the current consensus guidelines, and if consensus changes, I'll happily apply the new consensus guidelines to subsequent move discussions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

  Oh, I think we use the guidelines all right, at least Noetica does. I go more by common sense since I'm not familiar with all the guidelines and since I read some guideline that says you can just start editing with common sense and WP:IAR. The titling policies are a mess. They are almost totally useless for someone like me who is new and wants to just start writing. And recently I have started to understand how rapidly they have been changing and how little they reflect an actual consensus. They also read like someone wrote them with some pet theory in mind rather than a practical view. Personally I don't think the policy discussions should go on at the talk page; they should go on here, with specific naming situations. Even the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to take on cases unless they are based on a real life situation and not some intellectual exercise. Noetica can be annoying because if you are in a hurry you want to get to the point, but instead he has a lengthy analysis of why something should be a certain way based on the example in front of us. If you think about it, that's the way it should be. There is a foreground task, deciding the move request and stating the reasons for the !vote, and there is the background task, cataloging the complexities that went into the decision and applying it (eventually) to a new policy. Neotarf (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

  I realize that you and Noetica have an edit-history together, but it seems odd to claim little familiarity with the guidelines in the same breath that you claim Noetica uses those same guidelines "all right". You can edit boldly without worrying overmuch about the guidelines, yes. Discussions, including move discussions, are for editors to clean up those bold edits to conform to the guidelines as needed (or to agree to ignore the rules for the benefit of the encyclopedia). We'd rather editors make bold edits and clean them up as needed, rather than demand that all edits be clean to begin with (and thus find ourselves with no editors). In this case, there's no benefit to ignoring the rules, so we'd apply them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  An edit history together? That's news to me. Please don't start that or I will find myself dodging tar and feathers along with all the rest of his supposed socks and clones at the next Arbcom action. But I am the sort of person who reads footnotes and follows links. I followed and read all of the links and difs in the recent Arbcom thing--all of them. Talk pages too. If someone is blowing smoke, I know. If someone links to policy but doesn't appear to have read it themselves, I see that too. I don't always agree with Noetica, and sometimes find myself doing spit-takes at his expressions of exasperation, but his understanding of policy matches his citations, and his links pan out, all the time, every time. Neotarf (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not sure it qualifies as "news". This page, Talk:Baden (disambiguation), Talk:Fort Worth, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Workshop, and User talk:Noetica are prominent in your activity, and there's not a lot of activity. Nothing nefarious about that; there are several editors that I have an above-board edit history too. If you follow links and read footnotes, then hopefully you've seen WP:PRECISION and recognize that Noetica's understanding of policy does not match the consensus there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  So what are you insinuating, JHunterJ? And why are you doing it here? I invite you for a third time: visit my talkpage. If you have any issue with where I edit, and who occasionally supports me, that would be a proper location. What evidence do you have that I have not thought deeply about precision in article titles? Why do you imagine that your understanding of the issues is deeper, when I devote most of my Wikipedia time (and the expertise I bring to the Project) to MOS and titling matters? If you want to impugn my understanding, come and do it squarely and without polemics attached to a particular RM discussion, at which you yourself appear inflexible in the extreme, and unwilling to examine issues freshly and in the interests of readers. Are you familiar with Brecht's play about Galileo? Think about refusals to look through a telescope at the newly discovered moons of Jupiter – because canons (policy?), treated as Holy Writ, ruled that there could not be any such entities. (Like our modern Creationists, immune to the overwhelming weight of evidence.) You are an admin who determines some RM closures; act with the probity and understanding we expect in such an operator, or consider staying out of the kitchen, OK? ♥

  Finally (as I hope), take note of three observations written into policy, concerning fundamental principles at WP:TITLE (with my underlining):

  "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by. There will often be several possible alternative titles for any given article; the choice between them is made by consensus."

  [Not mechanical application of rules, note.]

  "These should be seen as goals, not as rules."

  [Ditto.]

  "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists."

  [What I have been saying, and you have not.]

  Noetica^Tea? 13:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  Proper evidence: your dismissal of the consensus guidelines at WP:PRECISION, as I've said squarely repeatedly without polemics. The rest of your posturing is tangential, consider keeping it out of the kitchen. OK? ♥ -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  The same people tend to show up on all of these threads, so now it must look like I've got "an edit history together" with Hunter as well.

  I for one would like to know why anyone would take issue with Noetica over WP:PRECISION, and why on earth it can't be discussed here, with or without polemics. As far as I can see, it's all a crap shoot anyway, with contradictory guidelines, and human judgment needed to balance them to make an entry that both works and looks professional. BTW, the main "and yet it moves" article looks shabby; two disambiguation notes under the title before you even get to the lead sentence, and a big orange lollipop in the middle of the page. Some of those "cultural notes" or trivia have already been added to the Eppur si muove dab page. Can some more of them be eliminated by adding it to the page? Or eliminate some of the dab list by adding it to the trivia notes? Neotarf (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  And I for one would like to know why anyone would take issue with WP:PRECISION's clear identification of capitalization-as-title-distinction. I don't see the guidelines aren't contradictory, but if they are, their talk pages is the appropriate place to form new consensus, rather than just ignoring the guidelines in discussions elsewhere. Discussion of the other article (the main one for the lowercase title) would be well placed at Talk:And yet it moves, but WP:HATNOTES are, as their name implies, placed at the top of the page for navigational aid for the readers who aren't seeking the page they're at. None of the ambiguous entries can be eliminated from the dab page, and topics that aren't ambiguous (passing trivial references) should not be added to the disambiguation page; IMO all of the entries can be eliminated from the article And yet it moves, which is why I placed the "in popular culture" tag on it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone has said you can't use capitalization to disambiguate titles, it's clearly both possible and permitted; likewise the policy says you can use parentheses, which I believe is what Noetica prefers and argues for. Capitalization has the advantage of making a much cleaner looking title, but the advantage over parentheses starts to evaporate when you add in all the clutter from disambiguation notes. Capitalization is also an advantage for the editor with advanced search skills, who knows which search engines are case sensitive and can tailor a search accordingly, or who knows in advance which articles exist and can use differences in capitalization to find them. But if you are an ordinary two-fingered user and are trying to find "that move quotation by Galileo", how would you know to type in caps or lower case? In any case, this will not help you with Google, which is how more than 60% of users come to Wikipedia (see my note on search engine stats at the bottom of the page). Titles with lots of information in them, as opposed to in the disambiguation notes, may also show up better in google searches; someone would have to test that one out. As it is, google only recognizes one "and yet it moves". If there was an "and yet it moves (game)" and an "and yet it moves (quotation)", might google recognize them as separate topics? And if so, would this be any advantage? Neotarf (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• So the argument for explanatory titling is that "humans will recognize it"? I would think that the most common form of the name is generally the most recognizable form. But this is a testable hypothesis, a question that may be answered empirically. A group of titles can be shifted between the name-only and explanatory forms. Then we can see which version gets more page views. BTW, the article on the Galileo quote is now the No. 2 Google result. Kauffner (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  I was going to add a note to the effect that it still has not propagated to my neck of the woods; I have been seeing the video game on all pages all afternoon, but I just googled it one more time and the lower case "and yet it moves" has just now moved to number two position. Neotarf (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:PRECISION explicitly allows for disambiguation by capital letter. Let's move Eppur si muove to And yet it moves. That should solve the primary topic problem. Kauffner (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

That would work, or use "and yet it moves" for disambiguation page so the German album would come up too. Neotarf (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I moved the Galileo quote. Kauffner (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I put a dab infobox for the video game on the German album. Neotarf (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment/Update so, at this point, And yet it moves is the quote, And Yet It Moves is the game, Eppur si muove redirects to the quote, Eppur Si Muove is the album, and Eppur si muove (disambiguation) is a dab page. ENeville (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The only one that looks out of place is the redirect. Eppur Si Muove (The West Wing) and the album are top desired destinations for the Italian phrase, so I don't think the Galileo quote should be primary. I'd move Eppur si muove (disambiguation) to Eppur si mouve. Then we'd be disambiguator free. Kauffner (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – Acknowledging that I only read about half that last debate, once it wandered into a what search function we are addressing... I think the current arrangement is acceptable. I think lower case is the default that readers would use to search (on WP), that we are tuning for WP search because other searches are prone to change beyond our control or prediction, and readers will by default land on the quote, which seems right. No need to disambiguate the game as of now. ENeville (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, whimsically FWIW if I saw Eppur si muove I'd think Galileo. But, truthfully, I saw this RM at the bottom of the RM queue and thought, And Yet It Moves, that has to be some 1950s creepy B-movie, why is it stuck at the head of the RM queue still? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment about searches This may shed some light on searches --

"Nielsen Online has released data showing that Wikipedia's 8,000% growth in the past 5 years is attributed to search. Really? Is that what happens when Google ranks all of your pages as #1? I had no idea.

Breaking down the not-at-all suprising data:

Google sent the most search traffic to en.wikipedia.org with 61% of searches on home computers and 66% of work computers. Yahoo came in second at 19% home, 16% work. The main www.Wikipedia.org came in third, beating out MSN and AOL at home and search.MSN.com and search.Live.com at work.

The numbers are from 2008, but still instructive. A little more digging turns up the exact numbers for search traffic from www.Wikipedia.org, 11% from home and 9% from work.

The obvious question is why make your titles opaque to the search engine (Google) that gives you more than half of your traffic? Neotarf (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue of search covers WP's entirety and should probably be addressed comprehensively on a policy level, rather than repetitively going through all the heavy lifting on various article talk pages. I'm not sure what the best venue would be. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:Article titles. ENeville (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

So right now, the situation is this:

On WP

• "as yet it moves" points to the phrase
• "As yet it moves" points to the phrase
• "As Yet It Moves" points to the game
• Any other capitalization scheme (no matter how wacky) gives the search results, with current the game listed first followed by the phrase (but with blurbs that distinguish them easily enough)

Both pages hatnote to each other, along with appropriate hatnotes for the album.

Given this, I see no need for a name change. An english speaking user looking for the phrase is going to be either ignoring case and using all lowers, or using Sentence case, which still gets the phrase. They have one more click if they do anything else. The need to move things around seems unnecessary at this point. --MASEM (t) 23:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

@Masem, pretty much, with bristling disambiguation notes sprinkled throughout. Except that the quotation was supposed to come up first on a search, as it was the agreed-on primary topic. For several days it was working that way, but now for some reason the game comes up first again. Apparently Google doesn't support Wikipedia's use of caps. I shouldn't say "first" because the other topics don't come up at all. But yes, it's done, for now. Neotarf (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It is still the agreed-upon primary topic for and yet it moves. A search on Wikipedia (there's a search box in the upper right) on "and yet it moves" lands you on the quotation first, as the agreed-upon primary topic. Google does whatever Google does with that; we don't title pages in order to change the ordering of Google results. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Oddly, after 24 hours, the google search now comes up with both "and yet it moves" and "Eppur si muove" (but not the game) on the first page. Clearly the ways of Google are mysterious. Neotarf (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Neotarf. Tony (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. A widely reported and controversial quotation of the first importance historically, versus a video game article assessed as low importance by the relevant WikiProject? You can't be serious. If the relevant policies and guidelines really do support such a proposition, then perhaps we'd better just delete them all. Andrewa (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  You omitted how the quotation isn't capitalized ambiguously with this title. But yet, please to propose changes to policies and guidelines that you disagree with, rather than ignoring them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  Life is finite. Object strongly to your suggestion that I am ignoring any policy or guideine. Agree that guidelines and policies should be used - Otherwise why have them? That was actually my point, or part of it. My experience with proposing changes leads me to believe it's not a talent I have, but Wikipedia is a collaboration, so those good at it should be the ones to do it. I do still propose changes from time to time, but IMO it shouldn't be my highest priority. Andrewa (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  You appear to be ignoring WP:AT, in which titles Red Meat and red meat yield different topics, varying only by capitalization, exactly the way that And Yet It Moves varies from and yet it moves. There is no quotation, widely reported, controversial, first importance historically, or otherwise, for the title "And Yet It Moves". -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  Not ignoring, but not wishing to be legalistic about it either. I think there's a difference between this and red meat/Red Meat. The capitalisation is a good disambiguator in that case, true, but it doesn't work nearly so well in this case. Andrewa (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  And I'm only observing the guidelines, not being legalistic about them. Why doesn't capitalization work just as well in this case? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Let me throw another example: deja vu. There's lots of works that can be titled "Deja Vu", but searching for that goes to the page about the expression. Now, before some see this as vindication that the video game should be moved off the phrase here, I will point out that 1) there's an absolute need for a full disambiguation page for Deja Vu as there's at least 20 works that are named like that, in addition to the phrase itself. and 2) the phrase "deja vu" is a lot more part of the common slang than "and yet it moves". If "and yet it moves" were that much more common, I would definitely be siding with the idea of moving the video game off that. But it's not a very common phrase - important, but not commonly repeated. As such, it does not merit being specially called out above and beyond every other possible "and yet it moves" title, particularly when capitalization can be used to distinguish it. Because of all the hat notes set up, a user searching for the phrase or the video game or the album will be exactly one click away from getting to the right page, which is far from the hassle that it is otherwise being made out to be. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  And likely in that case Deja Vu should redirect to the disambiguation page rather than to the expression (which isn't Title Capped). -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:And Yet It Moves/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bridies (talk · contribs) 06:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Commencing review, comments shall follow within the next day or two. bridies (talk) 06:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Main comments

• 1. I've done a copy edit and the prose is fine. The predominance of the passive voice in the development is just a tad odd, but not too big an issue.
• 2. One assumes the paragraphs with no citations in the gameplay section are either from the primary source or collated generally from the references, so that's ok, but:
  • The near final version of the game was submitted to Nintendo's Quality Assurance team in May 2010 to inspect and find bugs. The game was released on WiiWare in North America on August 23 and in Europe on August 27. specific dates like these need a citation.
  • As do sales: "More than 370,000 units of the game were sold as part of the Humble Indie Bundle 3."

And some sourcing issues in the reception section:

• • The Popzara review needs removed. We've no consensus for this publication as reliable and they don't have any authority I believe. Looking into the site and its publisher it appears borderline at best, which might be just about be OK for a review in a better-than-nothing scenario; but including a "superlative" review from such a site in a GA, no.
  • Ditto the Destructoid review. We have some past discussion on Destructoid (see above link) and the consensus is that as a blog it lacks the required editorial oversight and thus the authors must be recognised experts themselves if we are to cite them. I looked into Matthew Razak and he writes for another unreliable (for our purposes) site and a film site. So a paid-per-hit blogger calling the game a "masterpiece" and such isn't admissible here.
  • Suggest possibly more detail from the reliable sources already here, or looking for more. If GameSpot, IGN and 1UP reviewed it I don't see why others might not.
• 3. Gameplay section is fine; development section would appear to be comprehensive; reception section is short-and-sweet, appropriate for an indie game
• 4. Neutral, aside from the possibly OTT reviews
• 6. Stable
• 7. Images are fine, FURs are adequate.

Will check some content against the sources later. bridies (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Update non-RS reviews removed and replaced with the good-enough Nintendo Life. Have checked some statements against the sources and all is fine. I note no cites for the release dates but I wouldn't consider this to be a controversial issue in such a recent game. Will Pass. bridies (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

References

A-Class

• I Support A-Class. --JDC808 ♫ 05:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• I support, and good enough for FA I think.--Wangxuan8331800 (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Free use assets

I had no idea we already had an A-class article on this game when I got the free use assets packed in with other Broken Rules assets—I actually assumed we had no article on it at all! Nice work  czar ♔ 05:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on And Yet It Moves. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120107135328/http://gamerlimit.com/2009/05/and-yet-it-moves-developer-interview/ to http://gamerlimit.com/2009/05/and-yet-it-moves-developer-interview/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)