Jump to content

Talk:Deadmau5/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Note for our readers

 Done -Moxy (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC) I see that bureaucracies has won over common sense in this case. Because of the unstable version of the article title we are stuck with I think we should have a FAQ section (banner) here on the talk page explaining why the article is wrong because of our styling policy. We could link to the conversation(s) we had about this as well.Moxy (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There is already such a link, at the top of the talk page, which gives all of the previous move discussions, etc. A FAQ will make sense if people start coming here asking questions - let's wait to see if that happens.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
We should have a banner explaining why - we have had 3 IP's inquirer about this since the move already - 2 here and one at the help desk.Moxy (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, if that's the case - I added a FAQ above.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Nice work.!!!Moxy (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Look, we're already getting edits from editors that are unaware of the bureaucracy at play here. Maybe the FAQ should be on the article page? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Deadmaus spelling for all articles?

So here we are stuck with this tile till the admins allow for a new move talk that all know the outcome of. Very odd all know what is to come but have to wait some random amount of time. This brings up the topic of consistency within all his articles and all over Wikipedia. Should we ask some one with a bot to fix all the links that are still Deadmau5 or do people think its work for nothing as it will all be changed back in the end?Moxy (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No need. Redirects work fine. You don't need to bother to change them. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

why was no action taken with the above section?

A move of this page back to Deadmau5 was proposed two sections above this one. The rationale was WP:IAR in spite of a faulty MOS rule. The fact is that "Deadmaus" is not a word. I see the argument against calling this page "Deadmau5", but "Deadmaus" is absolutely NOT a valid alternative. It is yet another example of wiki-created nonsense and goes to show why wikipedia is not a reliable source. As Filelakeshoe pointed out, the manual of style is not a policy - it is a guideline, and it has a disclaimer at the very top of the article, indicating that there are exceptions:

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions.

From the above discussion, we seem to have 11 people supporting the change back to the original name that was used for 5 straight years - IP 81.167.214.14, myself, filelakeshoe, Insulam Simia, Helicopter Llama, bobrayner, moxy, andy dingley, capscap, Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad, eo.

Whereas only 3 people oppose the change - wetdogmeat, powers, rob sinden.

Given 11 > 3, and the reasons for the change are indeed valid, let's make it happen. You don't HAVE to use move review in order to change a recent move. That is not a policy. It can be done here. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The debate about the close is going on at ....Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 June.Moxy (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
No need to invoke IAR... there are several policies and guidelines that support moving this back to Deadmau5... most notably our WP:Article titles policy (see especially WP:COMMONNAME). However, since there is a move review ongoing, it would be considered disruptive to short circuit that process. Be patient. The world will not end if this page is at the "wrong" title for a while. Blueboar (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The issue is currently being discussed at WP:MRV (Move Review), which was where it should have gone. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so the discussion at move review seems to be consensus for changing it back to Deadmau5 with of course the one zealous dissenter, Wetdogmeat. Considering the original move was 8:5:2, a very slight margin, and nowhere near acceptable consensus by anyone's standards, shouldn't unanimous support with one dissenter be enough to change this page back to Deadmau5? I will take action on this within 24 hours unless a valid objection is raised. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The Move review has not yet closed. I suggest to please stop holding parallel discussions and advocating outcomes here. If you want to advocate a position or attempt to declare a consensus, please do it there – not here. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
A couple of editors have proceeded to edit the article as if the Move review was finished and a decision had been made to overturn the recent page move (i.e., as if the article title is now "Deadmau5" or "Joel Thomas Zimmerman"). When Insulam Simia tried to stop that with a plea to wait for the process to take its course, his revert was reverted and further revisions were made to remove all occurrences of "Deadmaus" from the article. I don't think that's proper. I'm reluctant to get into an edit war, but I think the recent edits are taking an "end run" around the process. I may revert, but I'm giving this warning here first. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
No, because even if this article ends up under deadmaus, the content of this article is quite outside the scope of RM. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I disagree – I don't think having the content of the article differ so clearly from its official title is appropriate. I also think that if you're trying to describe this artist's stylized name, you should probably use "deadmau5" rather than "Deadmau5". —BarrelProof (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
"I don't think having the content of the article differ so clearly from its title is appropriate."
Fortunately there's an easy fix for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
There is no policy that I am aware of that says we MUST wait seven days for the almighty move review to close before taking ANY action whatsoever. The edits were not related to the move review, but in all honesty we have near-unanimous support for changing this nonsense title back to Deadmau5 anyway. Why are we waiting an arbitrary seven days to implement a change that has unanimous support, aside from wetdogmeat, who is probably a troll. Nobody that is taking editing on wikipedia seriously is ever going to make their username "wetdogmeat". MidnightRequestLine (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I have been contributing to Wikipedia for almost seven years. I know the policies and I know the guidelines (including WP:NPA, which you should seriously consider familiarising yourself with if you want to be allowed to continue contributing here). That I have a different opinion to you on this matter does not make me a 'troll', nor does that fact that my username is a portmanteau of a personal and an obscure musical reference that you couldn't possibly be expected to understand. Frankly, MidnightRequestLine, you have conducted yourself appallingly in this debate: you have been and continue to be disingenuous in your argument (see below), you have fabricated total nonsense (which has been pointed out to you repeatedly), you have drawn in all manner of patently irrelevant rubbish (considerations of 'hipness' being the most ridiculous), you have failed consistently to address your points to the relevant policies, and you have made repeated NPA-violating insults and insinuations against those who disagree with you (principally myself). I suggest you get over me and move on with your life. Perhaps it would help you if you realised that I am not the only user who favours the standard English, 1337-free article title, despite my being the most vocal in this instance; Masem, LtPowers, BarrelProof, among others, have expressed their support for the move, across the three or four discussions this has provoked. And that is not even taking into consideration that fact that the page was successfully moved in the first place. This claim that there is 'one dissenter' is another of your fabrications. Wetdogmeat (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I've said nothing against you as a person. I didn't know you have been editing for seven years and if you said that earlier, I would have been satisfied. You have the appearance of being a newly registered editor with interest in only a single issue. And the fact that your name is "wetdogmeat" makes me think that your goal is just to bother people. Now I understand that that is not the case, and I apologize for upsetting you. I did not say you are a troll because you have a different opinion than me. I said it because of your user name. It's nothing personal.
I talked about "hipness", but that was never supposed to be an appeal to a policy. I just said that it is understandable that less "hip" sources might accidentally type "Deadmaus" instead of "Deadmau5". The other dissenters have not said much in quite some time. I figured they were indifferent at this point. But even if they weren't, there is still a very overwhelming majority in favor of "Deadmau5". Yes, the page was "successfully" moved, but it was not rightfully moved. 8:5 is not consensus. A seven year veteran should know that. There is more consensus for a move back to Deadmau5 than there was consensus for the first move. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Just FYI, I believe that statements like "wetdogmeat, who is probably a troll" are generally counted as saying something against him as a person. When you're talking about whether to spell the page title Deadmaus, and someone supports that spelling, then statements like "Deadmaus is only used by ignorant people and old squares" are normally also taken to mean that you personally believe the editors who support it are all "ignorant people and old squares". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, please don't start. I was talking about sources that use the name Deadmaus. They would have to be ignorant as to the actual spelling, or have some sort of grudge against the use of numbers in names, something I imagine only old squares possess. I wasn't referring to editors. I was referring to the authors of sources. Sorry it was taken any differently. But seriously, please don't follow me everywhere I go on wikipedia. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
And in case anyone's not familiar with the word troll, it wasn't a meaningless insult. I wasn't calling him an ugly mythical creature. I was referring to a more meaningful use of the term troll (Internet): "in Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." It wasn't supposed to be an insult. I was referring to the act of trolling. Speculating if someone is a troll isn't really insulting. If I was calling him an ugly mythical creature... that would be another story. I apologize if it was taken wrongly. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Speculating if someone is a troll is insulting. Wetdogmeat clearly isn't a troll, he acts in good faith. Calling someone a name will always be taken the wrong way. Insulam Simia (talk/contribs) 22:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. I wouldn't be insulted if someone thought I was a troll. My point is that I was exactly not "name calling". It's not like calling someone a "jerk" for no reason just to be insulting. The word troll has a very specific meaning. It's unfortunate that it's named after ugly mythical creatures. But I understand that it may have been taken as an insult by some people and I apologize for that. It won't happen again. I now understand that Wetdogmeat has not been trolling us. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
RM 2 was out of process, and was procedurally closed. Your only option at this point is to sit back and wait, then propose a new RM in a few months time, to see if consensus has changed. Opening up another RM at this point would IMHO be considered disruptive. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
But there was no consensus in RM 1 and a strong consensus in RM 2, which was closed and we were told to go to the wrong venue for discussion, a move review. Move reviews are for discussing RMs that were believed to not follow WP:RMCI, not because we didn't like it. This is absolutely tedious, as filelakeshoe pointed out here. Insulam Simia (talk/contribs) 16:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
You keep on saying that "there was no consensus". Consensus is a slippery thing - sometimes it's obvious, sometimes it's not, and in this case, an admin MADE A CALL. Whether you agree with that call is irrelevant - the proper forum was indeed MR, which was created for this purpose. That forum AGREED WITH THE CALL. Therefore, while you may not like the result, the call was made, the original RM was open for over 2 weeks, so I suggest y'all move on... If there is some consensus change made to the relevant guidelines, then this can be revisited, but until then, I'd suggest waiting several months before starting this up again.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
An admin made a call that was without an explanation. The recent clarification of that, IMHO, is insufficient (see BDD's talk page). I am backing away from all this; doesn't mean I'm giving in to your argument, but instead, I cannot be bothered with what has now turned into a useless discussion which is me arguing with you, not helping the encyclopedia. Someone else can be bold and make things happen. Insulam Simia (talk/contribs) 17:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Clearly no consensus on the first move - anyone can see that. As anyone can see the move is not productive and has caused controversy (clearly not a stable version) - let alone readers asking why this is so.Moxy (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I understand *you* feel that way, but the closing admin saw a consensus, and then those !voting at the Move Review to "endorse" agreed with the consensus, and the closing admin on the Move Review saw a consensus to endorse. Consensus does not mean "the way I want it to be".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I want you personally to look at the first move talk - Your experience level here is getting up there with my level of experience and time - thus I trust you can determine for yourself and give an opinion as I have (I have the right to my opinion and the right to voice that opinion). Would be best not to simply trust the judgment of those that have a admin status. All opinions are relevant even those by new editors. Look and make your own judgment on the topic - don't assume all is ok because of who did what - just look at the mess we are in.Moxy (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, since you are an experienced editor and you have asked kindly, I have done so at your request. (I do note, however, that saying above "anyone can see that" could have been better phrased as "My reading of the first move discussion was no consensus" - as obviously some people disagreed). The following is my opinion only (obviously):
The sourcing on Deadmaus is extremely weak. I've tried google source-specific searches for high quality RS, for example: Deadmaus 6 hits vs Deadmau5 ~511 actual results - so by WP:COMMONNAME, this fails by a country mile. Similar results obtain for NY Times. Wikipedia:TITLETM#Standard_English_and_trademarks also would suggest keeping at Deadmau5, specifically this: "unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark". Unfortunately, there were few supporters of this position - only IgnorantArmies was arguing cogently based on it, and you also have a case of conflicting guidelines - what happens when the COMMON name is also "stylized"?
I also note that the word policy was thrown around a lot, but WP:TITLE is a policy, while MOS:TM and Wikipedia:BANDNAME#Bands.2C_albums_and_songs are guidelines. Thus, had I participated and cared enough, I probably would have put forward that argument, and said COMMONNAME should trump - and I don't think anyone can defend that anything but Deadmau5 is the commonname (which may not be the case with Se7en or Macy*s or the other ones.) It seems that in choosing a single, easy-to-type character as decoration/tweak, he has succeeded in getting the world's media to use his special name, which most other stylized trademarks haven't succeeded. Finally, there is also room for IAR here - misapplied in a bold-post-move-move, but if invoked in the spirit of the discussion, could have had currency - but I didn't see that invoked well either. However, IAR is a big and dangerous stick - one could equally invoke IAR to say "forget COMMONNAME, keep it at Deadmaus no matter how many times Rolling Stone and NY Times uses Deadmau5, use something that the average reader is likely to understand!" (a similar IAR argument was made at Talk:Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) to justify using a name that has never appeared in any reliable source, anywhere).
The closing admin had to make a call, and in terms of rough consensus - e.g. where the community was heading, based on a cursory reading and !vote counting (which is not disallowed, as one input, if both sides have decent arguments), a move to Deadmaus was warranted. If I closed it, I may have made a different call - either no-consensus, or do not move, or even relist. If you take a more legalistic interpretation, and say "Well, WP:TITLE overrides MOS:TM", then you would probably just keep at Deadmau5. These move discussions are never easy, I've participated in several and closed a few, it's a thankless job, there's always someone who has hurt feelings. FWIW, this was my favorite comment, the last one in the door of the 2nd RM: "5upport". hehe. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Best overview I have seen yet. I agree with most - so here were are with a move that is debatable. We then have a new move request with new people making a few new arguments. This was closed because it was to soon apparently and the content editors here were told to go to move review. At move review all come to learn that its not about any new info or more people involved its about if the close was done properly - apparently it was despite so much concern. So here we sit with an article that has taken up the time of many editors and involved a few admins - we can all see what the outcome of where a wider talk will lead too but yet here we sit. I have been here a long time and been involved in many move talks myself and have only ever seen a discussion like this move away from what new editors have to say and thus prove to a bureaucratic solution that basically says "all was sort of ok with what first happened" - thus suppression of any further talks on the matter despite knowing the outcome of said talk. In this case (be it the second time around) we have a majority who are citing policies over a guide but are being ignored because of procedure. This is one of the reasons cited as to why we are loosing so many long term content editors - there being ignored. Why in the hell cant our editors have a second conversation about the pages title is still alluding me in this case - at Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight I think the editors talked about it 5 times in a week - why because new people had new things to say and show the rest of us.Moxy (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing preventing another RM - in fact one may blossom below, but to move to a silly (IMHO) title - I'd rather have it be off by one stylized character than use some name barely anyone knows. But in the general case, if we allow a new RM to be opened immediately after the old RM, why not just continue doing that for every RM? It would be endless and disruptive. So MR was created, and the idea that you shouldn't do serial renames. The kidnappings case was, obviously, special, since it was a developing story - this is a guy who has been around a long time, there isn't any NEWS here about his name. Where were all the complainers during the first MOVE discussion? We previously had a template we would stick on the article page, that told people a RENAME was going on - this was (unfortunately) deleted - I thought it was useful, but many said "readers don't care about article titles" - but can you imagine if the legions of fans who read about Deadmau5 were told it was going to be renamed? IPs would flood the discussion, and the majority rule at least would be clear. Rather than get all fired up about this, it would be better to focus on improving the article, and slowly building a case, perhaps start an RFC on the question of "What do we do when COMMONNAME says one thing, but TRADEMARK says another" - as there are other cases like Tech N9ne where RS use a decorated form much more than not, so these conflicts happen a fair amount. See what a broader consensus says about the policy and guidance issues, and if it ends up in your favor, then come back in a few months, and I bet a rename back would pass. But not now, it's just too early, too much time has been wasted already (IMHO) over one character. this may end up on the list of silliest wp editing controversies some day... we should let Deadmau5 know the trouble he's caused. :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I question whether it is too soon to start another RM on this. The move has generated a lot of negative reaction - and most of that reaction has come from people who did not comment in previous RM discussions. Yes, if we only pay attention to the comments of those who participated in the recent RM, I would agree that the consensus seemed mixed... However, when we take into account those who have commented since the RM closed (comments from people who did not participate in the RM) I think there is evidence that a much broader (and firmer) consensus has emerged (and did so very quickly). It would be wrong of us to ignore that new broader consensus... which is why I think a new RM might well be in order. Blueboar (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
In reply to those asking "where was everyone during the first RM???" - well, I can't speak for other people, but Deadmau5 has been on my watchlist for quite some time, before the first RM was opened. It apparently failed me for 2 whole weeks during the first RM, and I actually stumbled across this whole thing doing casual reading about him. Have you noticed this with watchlists? It seems like they sort of "forget" about articles you haven't edited in a while. Weird. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Move Review

the move discussion is ongoing above, so please participate there. Once it closes, you can start a move review if warranted. For now closing this section as it fractures discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have started an official review of the move here. Hopefully reason, logic and policy will prevail in this case and the article will be moved back to it's policy-defined place at Deadmau5. PantherLeapord (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Gauging consensus

In order to get an idea of consensus let's have a segmented !vote to show which article title is preferred

Support Deadmau5

  1. "Our policies on trademarks generally eschew the use of stylized characters in trademarks." uhh... The trademark is actually Deadmau5 so according to that VERY POLICY the article should be at Deadmau5! PantherLeapord (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  2. Deadmaus is not the artisit's name and unlike some stylization (such as Kesha/Ke$ha), notable source almost exclusively use Deadmau5. Support move to Deadmau5 per WP:COMMONNAME. Additionally, there are varying opinions as to how Deadmau5 should be pronounced and the artist himself has made no official comment. This means that Deadmaus may not even be a correct alternative and the only way to be correct is by moving to Deadmau5. After seeing the post above and Deadmau5's twitter post, we can conclude it is pronounced Dead-mau-five and this means Deadmaus is an incorrect alternative. Oddbodz (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Support Deadmaus

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Well there you have it. Unanimous consensus for Deadmau5 once this silly move request closes. PantherLeapord (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Within said move request, there’s still opposition to “Deadmau5”. Far from unanimous support. —Frungi (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
In case it was not clear that line was referring to this specific section. While there is not unanimous consensus on the move request AFAIK the consensus there is still very much in favor of Deadmau5 with a small minority supporting deadmaus. PantherLeapord (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
With only two participants here, unanimous support is meaniningless, considering the number of other participants in all the other discussions, here and at MRV. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me for still being confused. If the majority of people still agree to change it back to "Deadmau5" and the common name/trademark issue clearly supports that the name should in fact be "Deamdau5," why has it yet to be changed? A person made a good point about the metal bands having "special treatment" with their names. The correct trademark is "Deadmau5." That's how it should be. Kesha and Ke$ha is a completely different story. Ke$ha was just a logo design for her album cover, it wasn't her legally trademarked name as is the case with "Deadmau5." I've tweeted him this discussion but as you can imagine, he gets thousands (maybe more) of tweets a day so it's a bit hard to reach him. I'm trying though to see if he can finally end this issue. Unless of course we all act like normal people and settle it ourselves, and by settle it I of course mean change it back to the officially/legally correct "deadmau5." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.45.224.215 (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The trademark issue does not explicitly support this name. Opinion is deeply split on whether the preference of “standard English” in that guideline refers to conforming with the form that’s in standard use in English, or using an alternate form that’s more similar to existing standard words in English. —Frungi (talk) 04:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

$h*! My Dad Says

The move discussions here and at review have been interesting. I don't have any strong emotional investment in any proposed title here, and could accept any of the options provided the others were all given and explained in the lead sentence. But I note that we have an article titled $h*! My Dad Says and ask how consensus came to accept that, which must clearly be a violation of the MOS:TM guidance to "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words" (e.g., "Se7en"). I don't see how anyone would ever pronounce "$h*!" as "bleep", but there is pronunciation I could imagine is supposed to be used. So, if rather than "dead mouse" his name was Dead$h*! would we accept that? Are we allowing the exception for the TV show because the stylized word is an "expletive deleted"? Wbm1058 (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not the only exception. Some others are described above. There are several possible explanations for such things. One is that Wikipedia is WP:NOTFINISHED, and I see from the history of the $h*! My Dad Says article and its Talk page that there has been a history of discussions of the naming issue and page moves for that article. Another is to notice that at the top of MOS:TM, it says "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus." Another is WP:IAR. It is also worth remembering that pointing out that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not necessarily considered persuasive in Wikipedia discusssions. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Still supporting the move back to Deadmau5, and I don't get the guy who's saying "it doesn't matter if more people want it changed back, it matters on the arguments." We, the guys who want it changed back to the correct name, have had the best arguments by far, and that's not even a subjective statement. We've proven that more sources refer to his name spelled correctly, we've proven that the artist himself has that name legally trademarked, it follows the correct common name policy, and we've proven that this same situation (of "special, non pronounceable characters) occurs on other pages that you seem to not even care about. I'm 250% certain we've made more than enough of a great argument to have it changed back, but you for some unknown reason refuse to accept it.

Also, to the guys who are trying to argue about the Macy's logo and the Kesha logo. You're both getting names and logos confused. "Macy's" is the name, a star as an apostrophe is part of the logo. Same goes for Kesha. "Kesha" is her name, "Ke$ha" was a logo design for an album cover. "Kesha" is her legal name, common name and her trademark stage name. We can compare this to the company "VeriSign." That's the companies name, and their logo has a checkmark for the "V." You don't pronounce it as "checkmark erisign" because that's not it's name. You may think I'm sounding contradictory, except for the fact that "Deadmau5" IS the legal and trademarked name, not "deadmaus." In short, "Deadmau5" is a name AND a logo, not one or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.45.224.215 (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You make some very good points. If you're interested in why people, as you put it, "refuse to accept it", you might find that these essays answer some of your questions. Thank you for taking the time to improve wikipedia. Feel free to create an account. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
All these Deadmaus arguments are making me crazy. Rogue sources are not credible whatsoever. Most people on Google search for "deadmau5", not "deadmaus". I really do not understand why, in this case, the majority does not rule. We already have consensus for Deadmau5, and what happened to WP:COMMONNAME? smileguy91talk 03:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I share your sediment that this article was moved per a spelling by unreliable sources not used in the article. That was extremely inappropriate. Hopefully the closing admin takes that into account. STATic message me! 07:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Embarrassing - simply embarrassing

The 3 time this week - can we not waste our readers time? Wikipedia:Help desk#Page rename — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 16:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems the reason we can't change the title back to the consensus version is that Procedure was followed and was deemed Correct by the Powers that be (admins), and if you go back on that, it's disrespectful of those admins' decisions. But I don't recall "making an admin lose face" being one of the five pillars. The fact that valuing Consensus over Procedure is actually one of the pillars makes this even more frustrating. (FWIW, I know nothing about this Deadmau5 character. I am a fan of Tech N9ne and apparently missed the move discussion for that one, so I'm hoping for a reasonable outcome here.) Ultra Venia (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes same here. Hopefully if this page is moved to the correct title, it can be used as a precedent for a move back to Tech N9ne. Articles should not be moved due to the styles used by unreliable sources. STATic message me! 22:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Images

Alright... some content tweaks done; big issue. Image use... Two are of the performer and one is cropped and one is the 3-d depiction of the logo. I'm gonna tinker with it some. I'm going to search commons and try and make it better. Give me a few moments. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyone with some GIMP or PS skills want to clean up the new image a bit? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Already on it... wait... I can't due to my topic ban! PantherLeapord (talk) 04:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Very dark and difficult stage lighting - I had a shot, but not terribly happy with it - feel very free to revert, Chris, if you think it goes too far. Begoon talk 05:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, its better. My ideal is a picture of Zimmerman working with the mask on the side and in a professional setting with good lighting and clarity; this is about as close as we can get unless someone donates a better picture or personally requests one from Zimmerman to release for CC-BY-SA/Public Domain for use. A cropped and awkward wave or a weird angle camera shot or an indirect below camera shot are all inferior to the current one; a bit dark or otherwise. Someone else might come and clean it up better; I've seen near miracles with vintage photos that are translated to color and fix physical damaging. Might drop a request at the board for it even. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
First off the main infobox picture of a BLP should give the best view of the subjects face. More professional looking or not, the one with the best full view of his face should be used. Not one that only shows 30% of it and is from an awkward angle. STATic message me! 05:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
So you are going to chose an awkward one with an unusual gesture in an unnatural pose instead and remove the commons image as a result? And while a high-quality one is preferred I do not see any reference to "full view of face with X angle" in WP:LEADIMAGE - where I fully content that your replacement is worse because it is a low quality and awkward. Image relevance is important; but I don't see this "must be" and considering the original image, you obviously didn't care to fix it yourself prior to my change. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
The most important thing is to show a full visual of the subjects face, see any BLP this is always done. Yes it would be much better if we had a high quality visual of just his face, such as at 50 Cent and Tom Cruise for example, but we do not and your alternative was a step back compared to the former lead image as at least that immediately distinguished him. If anyone saw the image you add without the caption or anything, no one would know who it is even if they listened to deadmau5. Also I had never edited or even viewed this page prior to the second move discussion so your point is invalid. STATic message me! 05:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

- Your argument is subjective and is not explicitly covered by any policy I can think of; while it is preferential; naturalness and appropriateness come into play. I think one showing him deejaying with the costume nearby, with an appropriate caption, is superior to this crop and awkward post. Oh and deadmau5 fans won't recognize it easier; they'll still have to read the caption. Your argument is a logical fallacy or a really poor strawman argument; because you are stating that a caption is not required for unfamiliar readers to identity the subject as deadmau5 in your version versus the one which implies, but cements it in mine. The only difference is the naturalness and form in the picture; comparing the two side-by-side (lacking captions) the preference should be clear per image relevancy. Added note: Why not take another from the commons if you dislike it so much; almost all the pictures are better there. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It is I just do not have the time to go through the policy/guidelines to find where it says that, when it is clearly WP:COMMONSENSE. I did not know there were any posts in the article, regardless I said if the first image was shown to someone without telling them who the person was, they would think it was some random DJ because you cannot even see his face in the picture or the mouse head at that. I am sorry but you are the one without a logical argument and after how Obi destroyed your side of that discussion above I am seeing more now you have no strength behind your poor arguments. If you actually went to Commons, way to remove nearly every image from the article and add probably the worst possible one. STATic message me! 06:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Why do you not address the fact that without a caption your picture is unlikely to have even fans go "oh that's deadmau5"? Least the one I included has him, the mask and his role prominently displayed. Its not even that dark. You are making a mountain out of a molehill and not AGF. I'll re-insert it into the article below; but clearly, the image is better then either of the Madrid photos. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Content issues

I've axed some issues for BLP concerns and other matters. Wikipedia is not a collection of dirt and we do not include contentious information from non-RSes that cannot even be verified. The whole "DJ" issue linking to some junk source called trainspotter violates our standards of BLP. I've also removed some objectification of his personal life; where Lindsey Evans was introduced as a playboy playmate of the month.[1] This is why I don't think we should be discussing title issues; the people concerned about the title seem to care nothing about fixing other issues in the article. One would expect if you are this fired up about the subject you would pitch in and fix it yourself instead of leaving it to someone else. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Chris Gualtieri just cut this article in half!

Dear Chris Gualtieri,

Please restore all / most of that quality, cited content to the article, especially the Afrojack quote and the pictures. Just because one editor suggested that we focus on the article instead of the article's title does not mean we should go cut out every single piece of info that doesn't seem to be "of the utmost quality". In fact I believe that your recent edits hurt the quality of this article because you removed decent material. The article was not too long, so none of that material was superfluous. In fact, it was all fulfilling a very nice role, and this article was actually of perfect length IMO. But you seem very eager to go and chop out significant portions of this article which actually consisted of pretty high quality material. The reasons you gave in your edit summaries were not very convincing (eg "who is this guy?" referring to Afrojack, a popular EDM producer). I don't have time right now to restore all / most of the edits you made (because you made quite a few), so I'm asking you to please consider restoring some/all of it. I'm sure that some material you removed actually deserved it, but I think most of it should have stayed, and I don't have time right now to make that judgment call. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Take it up with BLPN; I'm not going to let unreliable and dubious sources carry on a matter like this in full quotes to create drama. I explained the issue above and you can either cite it properly or take it to BLPN; we don't carry on miniscule amounts of manufactured drama to tarnish or make a subject controversial. All I got from reading the original tumblr post was Zimmerman's opinion and some one taking offense. It is not even a "controversy". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The section regarding his comments about DJs should not have been deleted. That is relevant information, he harps on about this all the time, including on his own website: [2] "Joel Zimmerman doesn’t like being called a DJ. The dance music phenomenon from Toronto, better known as deadmau5, rolls his eyes at the description which he sees as a hopelessly outdated way of describing what he does." He's well known for this. And it didn't take me long to find other sources which verify his "press play" comments, like this one. - filelakesh03 (t / c) 13:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • QUOTEFARM is against what was there; if you want it in prose; put it in prose; but his personal opinion should not be dissected and attacked, especially not with primary source quotations. This is an encyclopedia; not a collection or dirt or drama. We treat the subject neutrally, with respect and without getting emotionally involved. Pick if it should be life or career or what; I'd opt career and insert a line about his opinion and a second line about the response if you must. I do not see how the subject's personal feelings on a matter warrant two full quotes and an attack by a third page (also a full quote) as a response. That's was the major problem with it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Marcus Schossow section

In the section about Marcus Schossow's little bedroom (studio) exploits, there are references to a project called "Deadrat6" and "Sinterklaa5". But hold on, isn't that really "Sinterklaas" styled "Sinterklaa5", shouldn't we be renaming that too? And what do we replace the 6 with in the first one hmm? - filelakeshoe (t / c) 13:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Mentioned once; a bit awkward, but I've got other things to deal with then worrying about the letter of MOS-TM while the above goes on. But a singular mention is fine; the voice readers for the blind will mess up the "Sinterklaas" pronunciation but "Deadratsix" may also be wrong. Given this article's subject, the accessibility is a bit warped, but I do not want to put three lines of exposition on every aspect of naming. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Kat Von D

She and Joel were engaged today via twitter which is a significant detail in his life. https://twitter.com/deadmau5/status/280155756370726912 is the source Grey eyed athena (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note that Kat Von D has publicly stated [1] on the 26th of june at 22:14 UTC that Joel cheated on her and they are no longer together. This is a significant detail in his life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.27.198 (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 3 (to "Joel Zimmerman")

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Clear consensus not to move. It is also clear that there is a fairly good consensus to move the article back to Deadmau5 and therefore another RM should be started in order to discuss that. Black Kite (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Deadmaus → Joel Zimmerman – I understand why people are against Deadmau5. I do not agree with it, but I understand. While Deadmau5 is not an ideal article title, the simple fact is that Deadmaus is NOT a word. It was created out of thin air by wikipedians and this is the reason your professors and teachers told you wikipedia is not a reliable source. May I suggest that we (temporarily or permanently) change the article's title to "Joel Zimmerman"? It is commonly used in sources. It is undeniably factually accurate. It is not made up by wikipedians. And it is uncontroversial (there are no 5s in it).

"Deadmaus" was created out of thin air by wikipedians based on 8 rogue unreliable sources from websites you've never heard of that were probably making a typo. The only argument against this that I can foresee is WP:COMMONNAME. Joel Zimmerman certainly isn't his WP:COMMONNAME, but then again, neither is Deadmaus. Joel Zimmerman is more common than Deadmaus and it is undeniably factually accurate.

This is not simply a continuation of the debates we've been having on multiple pages throughout wikipedia. This is a brand new proposal that we have not yet considered or debated about, so please do not close it without allowing for discussion. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: I notified all participants in the past two RMs, as well as MOS:TM and WP:TITLE --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should reformat all of these votes so that it is clear who voted for Deadmau5? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
By the way, "Deadmauz" has 245,000 google hits, which is 63,000 MORE than Deadmaus! MidnightRequestLine (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
From here, I see 292,000 Google hits for deadmaus and 245,000 for deadmauz. More lopsided with Bing: deadmaus = 90,000, deadmauz = 17,000. By the way, why are you putting comments way up here? Doesn't the discussion belong in the section below? —BarrelProof (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Discussion now happening, this is offtopic for the lede of a RM. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would support this however as demonstrated above there seems to be some sort of up in the air wait time for this one article before a new move talk can take place - even if the moves consensus is contested and/or has caused problems with our readers and editors. We dont have this problem when we have new articles.Moxy (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
If you want to request a move, you need to log it at WP:RM - instructions are there. I would however move to close this as a waste of time - extensive arguments about a move have been had already - if Joel Zimmerman was a good choice, consensus would have proposed that way. It wasn't. I feel like you should read WP:FORUMSHOPPING - you are not happy with the result but are storming around the wiki looking for any way to undo this latest move.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I would not see anything wrong with a new move request to move the article to "Joel Zimmerman", following the ordinary WP:RM process. The closing of the second requested move was based on procedural issues and did not consider the new suggestion. The whole move review process was a procedural discussion to consider whether there was some flaw in the way the other discussions were handled. Neither of those were really discussions to consider alternatives or determine whether consensus had changed. During the move review, MidnightRequestLine actually brought up the suggestion to move the article to "Joel Zimmerman" and no one explicitly said that wasn't acceptable. Moreover, the person who closed the first requested move has (very recently) said "There would be nothing wrong with a Joel Zimmerman RM" to consider that suggestion. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, BDD, the admin that closed the other move review, did not say that he/she supports the title "Joel Zimmerman", but did say that he/she supports a discussion, and said "Any editor closing such a discussion would be pretty clearly wrong, and I won't hesitate to tell that to him or her".
I understand why you think I am "stomping around" and "forum shopping", but the way I see it is that it is absolutely unacceptable for wikipedians to manufacture information when we should be reporting it, not making up nonsense names based on typos in unreliable sources. As BarrelProof said, the other discussions were not about consensus on the name or about alternatives to Deadmaus, they were about flaws in the first move closure. We should be given a chance to form an actual consensus about the name. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Note to discussion participants While the move request above is for Joel Zimmerman, participants are free to !vote for a rename to any other name of their choosing, including Deadmau5.
  • Support - to get the ball rolling. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Yup... the main argument against this is indeed WP:COMMONNAME... and I think that is a significant argument. WP:COMMONNAME is how we achieve the principle of Recognizability... the first (and arguably the most important) of the five basic principles set out in our WP:Article title policy. It should not be dismissed casually. Of course a proper application of WP:COMMONNAME (and several of the other basic principles of WP:AT) would move this back to Deadmau5... which is what I would have said in the previous RM had I known it was taking place. Blueboar (talk) 01:59, 18 Junhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deadmaus&action=edit&section=23e 2013 (UTC)
It is important to clarify that this is Joel Zimmerman vs the alternative - Deadmaus. We are choosing between these two. Another one of those pillars is precision, which Deadmaus shamelessly fails at. I agree, Joel Zimmerman is recognizable, but it is not as recognizable as the best possible title (which would be Deadmau5). But remember that we only have two choices - Joel Zimmerman and Deadmaus, and I think that Deadmaus' failure to be precise is worse than Joel Zimmerman's recognizability. In other words, Joel Zimmerman is more recognizable than Deadmaus is precise. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
You present us with a false choice... the previous move was an error, and the best choice for the title is Deadmau5. Blueboar (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The admins told me that if I requested a move to Deadmau5, that would be disruptive editing. I am trying to move this article away from a name that was invented by wikipedians. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
OK... so you didn't present Deadmau5 as an option... I am. All that you said doesn't change my opinion that Deadmau5 is a better choice than either of the options you present, one that is more in line with our WP:AT policy. We can dance around this all we want... but I still think the move away from Deadmau5 was an error, and I still think that is far and away the best option... and I think it needs to be part of this discussion. Blueboar (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I highly doubt we are going to have any luck trying to change the name back to Deadmau5, at least for a few weeks. Worst case scenario would be getting topic banned. But for the meantime, Joel Zimmerman is definitely better than Deadmaus. Do you not agree with that? Do you prefer Deadmaus over Joel Zimmerman? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Admins can topic ban me if they wish... but since I did not participate in either of the previous RMs, I think I have the right to state my opinion. (Note: I became aware of this dispute after the move occurred... when it was sent to closure review)... and I reject the false choice between Deadmaus and Joel Zimmerman. On that limited choice I choose "None of the above", and offer a different option. We do this all the time in RM discussions. I realize that the option I present is the one the article was just moved from... but there are a lot of people like me who did not participate in the previous RM, and I think their opinions matter. I want to give them a chance to state that opinion. Blueboar (talk) 02:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay perfect. Then I am going to follow your lead on this, because you clearly have much more experience with RMs than I do. I didn't know you could have a third option. And I am also in the same boat. My watchlist failed me for 2 damn weeks during the first RM, which I missed. Like you, I found out about this during the second one. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Please consider the fact that "Deadmaus" is not the stage name of Joel Zimmerman, or anyone for that matter. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Also opposed to moving it back at this point, as suggested by other !votes purely on procedural grounds as it is too soon. And yes I'm aware of the opinions on Deadmaus vs DeadMau5. Changing to !vote to snow close based on other comments. PaleAqua (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay fine than someone needs to take the risk of being a "disruptive editor" and request a move to Deadmau5. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
No need... we often present "third options" for discussion at RMs... and closers routinely go with those third options if consensus solidifies around them. If a consensus forms to reject both the current Deadmaus and the proposed Joel Zimmerman... and a new consensus forms around moving this back to Deadmau5... then the proper closure would be to say "move it back to Deadmau5". Blueboar (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Sigh. This is the problem, and where I disagree with User:BDD's suggestion this should be allowed. Obviously, in any given move discussion, ALL names can be proposed - it happens all the time - someone says "Let's move from A to B" and then "C" ends up being selected. So, anyone can !vote for Deadmau5 if they like, and since it will then end up being a discussion about Deadmau5 (who would chose Zimmerman over Deadmau5?), I think this nomination is disruptive. The MR just closed! You're just wasting a lot of people's time here. If this continues, you should probably neutrally notify all those who participated in past move discussions, using {{pls}}. OTOH, if you weren't so obsessed with immediately righting this "wrong", and considered the good of the wiki in general, you'd take time to carefully reflect on what brought us to this place, and what structural changes might be put in place to avoid it in the future. For example, you might say "Hey, we should notify readers on the main article page of page moves (this used to be an optional policy, with a template to support, but it was deleted --> Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_11#Template:Movenotice). Or you could say, people were confused by the MR process - and then work to improve that process. There are so many more *useful* things you could do structurally based on this, rather than re-hashing a discussion which has already been had three times in the past two weeks, yet again.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The question is this: Which is less disruptive... re-opening the debate to allow for a broader consensus, or ignoring all the people who did not participate in the previous RMs, but have subsequently given an opinion? I think re-opening the debate is actually the less disruptive of those options. Blueboar (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
and what happens if this closes as no-consensus, and next week another legion of fans shows up. Shall we hold another party for them too? People miss discussions all the time - their favorite articles about their favorite bands are deleted, and what recourse do they have? Can they open up another AFD? Bottom line is, current title is either ideal or within 1 character of ideal, so another 100k of discussion just to accommodate those who didn't get a say the first two times around is ridiculous, and there's no reason you couldn't do the same thing again next week for another set of fans. So we should nip this in the bud, go have a beer, and y'all can come back here in a few months with better arguments.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there is no reason why we couldn't have yet another RM in two weeks... and a fifth one two weeks after that... and a sixth one two weeks after that. No RM decision is ever permanent... This is because Consensus can change. If we get a reasonable indication that consensus might have changed since the last RM (no matter how long ago that was), then we should hold another RM to find out whether consensus has in fact changed. The overwhelmingly negative reaction to the move to Deadmaus tells me that consensus very well might have changed in the few days since the last RM closed (in fact, I think it likely that consensushas changed... very quickly). That in itself is reason to re-open the discussion. Now. to avoid having to have more RM discussions, what I would suggest is advertizing this one to the hilt... post notices at the Pump... and at all relevant policy talk pages... Hell, even post special wiki-wide notice on everyone's talk page. Notify as many people as possible that the discussion is going on, so we can get a proper community wide consensus on this... or at least one that goes beyond just a few policy wonks. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose and recommend move back to "Deadmau5". I agree very much with the wrongness of Wikipedia "inventing" words to conform to its "rules" (anyone remember WP:NORULES is one of the Five Pillars??). Changing reality to suit interpretations of Wikipedia's alleged "rules" and "policies" (guidelines) is very questionable in many areas, I won't bother making a list. I've brought up the example of also UJ3RK5 (NB "the five is silent"), which cannot be moved to Ujerk. Another example is Brother XII, which thought "XII" is a common and recognizable usage, is in the same vein; if the same logic applied there, the never-seen-though-pronounced "Brother Twelve" would be the title.Skookum1 (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
No need to invoke NORULES (or IAR)... since our WP:Article titles policy solidly supports Deadmau5. Blueboar (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose Where to begin. This move request has clearly been raised not to promote the merits of a name but to disparage the results of a twice fairly concluded process (Talk:Deadmaus#Requested move 1, Talk:Deadmaus#Requested move 2) that was also subsequently reviewed (Wikipedia:Move_review#Deadmaus (closed)). Beyond the fact that naming issues for individuals with stage names (WP:STAGENAME) is established and well accepted, there is no demonstration the WP:COMMONNAME for this artist is the proposed title. Deadmaus/Deadmau5 (English text formatting and capitalization rules confirmed through a past requested move) is clearly the common name.--03:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Labattblueboy (talk • contribs)
  • Support – At this point, I'm willing to try anything, since there seems to be such strenuous objection to the current title (although, personally, I thought it was fine). No one opposed the Zimmerman idea during the move review, so I'm surprised at the backlash against it now. But just for the record, "Deadmaus" was not "created out of thin air by wikipedians". There were several sources identified that had used it (approximately 8, if I remember correctly), although it was a minority. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Correct - there are lots of google hits from random blogs, etc for Deadmaus. Also see bbc: ~20, Guardian: ~4, Billboard ~2, Rolling stone ~2 - these are extremely weak, and Deadmau5 is used many orders of magnitude more times, but it does show that some reliable sources very rarely use Deadmaus. But this is discounted by the thousands of times these same sources use Deadmau5.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • oppose The reductio ad absurdum of renaming this to Zimmerman seems to have passed a few editors by. The point is that any name other than deadmau5 is a pointless, ridiculous, triumph of dogmatic selection of a trivial wiki guideline over basic common sense, and indeed strong wiki policy. Zimmerman is not a useful name, its choice discredits wikipedia. However some editors are keen to do just that, to make wikipedia appear even more of a nonsense in the public eye, by arguing vehemently that eggs must only be eaten from one particular end first. That is no useful way to build an encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
"by arguing vehemently that eggs must only be eaten from one particular end first." - What? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Endian War
  • Oppose, move back to deadmau5, the article title should be "deadmau5", moving it anywhere else is just as unhelpful. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 13:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose, move to deadmau5 Any name other than deadmau5 wouldn't be his most well-known name. He's also established himself as an artist enough for the vast majority of listeners to tell the difference between a 5 and an S. By proposing a move to Joel Zimmerman you suggest that he's known better by his real name than by his stage name, which is completely untrue. I would see the logic in this suggestion if Zimmerman had careers under his real name (i.e. as an entertainer rather than just a musician) but he's known solely for his music by the mainstream audience, by the name deadmau5. Any other title would be such a trivial stylisation that it wouldn't be worth moving and, more importantly, less recognised by the general public. DJUnBalanced (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that he is better known by Zimmerman than by Deadmau5. I am suggesting that he is better known by Zimmerman than by Deadmaus, which he is not at all known by. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Don't forget, we can always redirect people that search "deadmau5" to "Joel Zimmerman". Although not a big fan, I would call myself a follower of his music, and I can tell you that "Joel" is used a lot more in discussions than "deadmaus", so this change would be a great improvement. On another note, the producer Varien, who is quite popular on the web, has a Wikipedia article, under his real name "Nick Pittsinger". Since there has been no outcry whatsoever on that article's talk page, I doubt that there would be much of a controversy if we compromise here and move this article to "Joel Zimmerman". Helicopter Llama 15:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. Deadmaus is not used at all. Joel is at least used sometimes. This is supposed to be a compromise. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, leave at Deadmaus Use standard English, avoid unpronounced characters, assume unfamiliarity, not an issue of spelling, "Deadmau5" and "Deadmaus" the same word styled differently, etc, etc. Wetdogmeat (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, make "Joel Zimmerman" a redirect, don't move back to "Deadmau5" – "Deadmaus" and "Deadmau5" are the more widely known names. You wouldn't move "Rick Ross" to "William Leonard Roberts II", would you? Nope, because hardly anyone knows the rapper by "William Leonard Roberts II"; "Rick Ross" is the most widely known. Same thing with Deadmaus. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 16:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and move back to original. I did once support this idea, but no. I'm sure there are many people who do easily know his real name, but still, the most common name is Deadmau5. It appears that this move is starting to become a proxy move and an excuse to move it back to the original title. Insulam Simia (talk/contribs) 16:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. high marks for the attempt, but this takes things even further in the wrong direction. Let it stay at this current title as a shining example of consensus trumping common sense. Resolute 17:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
That's a little WP:POINTy, isn't it? Insulam Simia (talk/contribs) 21:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Not even consensus, if there is a consensus, then it's for this article to be at deadmau5. This is madness trumping common sense. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 09:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Regretful oppose; I don't think this really solves the problem, although I appreciate any attempt to bring titles in line with real-world usage. The best way to solve the problem is to move back to deadmau5. bobrayner (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Move to Deadmau5. The article never should've been moved in the first place. MOSTM holds that we should favor standard English, and basically every source we would look to for what constitutes standard English (NYT, AP, BBC) uses Deadmau5. Croctotheface (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This doesn't have a snowball's chance of succeeding. His stagename is obviously the only suitable title, and we render that name according to our MOS (that is, by calling an 's' an 's' instead of pretending that a '5' is an 's'). Why are we making this so difficult? Powers T 17:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support: only because I would rather it be Joel Zimmerman than "Deadmaus". Ultimately it should be Deadmau5: that is his stage name; it isn't adorned with stylized symbols. As article states, it is a form of leet. This differs from, say, Ke$ha or A$AP Rocky. Nowhere is he known as "deadmaus" except for in this bizarre page-move universe. Why not just name the page "Deadmouse" if we're gonna get technical about it? - eo (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Why does it differ from Ke$ha or A$AP Rocky? A dollar symbol is routinely used as a stand-in for the letter S. There is no difference, the $ and the 5 are equally decorative and unpronounced. Wetdogmeat (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
A serious response this time: Because sources widely do refer to them without using the dollar sign. Sources do not widely refer to Zimmerman without using the numeral. —Frungi (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
That's not what I asked. User:Ericorbit stated "Ultimately it should be Deadmau5: that is his stage name; it isn't adorned with stylized symbols. As article states, it is a form of leet. This differs from, say, Ke$ha or A$AP Rocky." I asked why does it differ from the use of a dollar symbol in these names, in the context of the definition of characters as stylised symbols, not in the context of instances in sources (which I concede is the minority but argue is irrelevant). Wetdogmeat (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I think you mis-parsed his comment—I think the relevant part is after the sentence, not before: “This differs from, say, Ke$ha or A$AP Rocky. Nowhere is he known as "deadmaus" except for in this bizarre page-move universe.” That is, he was saying it differs in the other context. —Frungi (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Because “deadmouse” isn’t a word. It would have to be “Dead Mouse”. —Frungi (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay. But that seems just as silly, doesn't it? - eo (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
As silly as "Deadmaus"? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, I suppose "maus" is a well known spelling variant of "mouse". I think I actually found some sources using "Dead Maus"! (or should that be "Dead maus"?) —BarrelProof (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
This line of argument is ridiculous. Removing the stylisation from the S in Deadmaus is not altering the spelling, any more than removing the stylisation from the S in Ke$ha or from the A's in BΔLΔM ΔCΔB is. The concept of spelling does not apply to numbers or monetary symbols or geometric shapes. Wetdogmeat (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Also if the maus mouse issue was an accurate reflection of how Wikipedia rules worked we would need to move the Beatles to the Beetles since Beatle is not a real world. To the best of my knowledge that move attempt has never been tried and even if it was it would likely be rejected out of hand. In short, Deadmaus is not an issue under these grounds.--174.93.171.179 (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
It is altering the spelling if you consider it to be spelled with a “5”, which many sources evidently do. Yes, “5” is a numeral and not a letter, but who says that means it can’t be used as one? —Frungi (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
No it isn't disruptive. That is way too long. Clearly, from all these pro-Deadmau5 votes we have here, consensus has changed. There is no reason to wait 3 months. That is an arbitrary amount of time. If you don't have a policy to appeal to, your arguments are unsubstantiated. I highly doubt that anyone will try to move it back once it's re-moved to Deadmau5. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Clearly this is disruptive. If this is moved to "Deadmau5", it will again be brought up in a new RM request the very next day, or at MRV. WP:CCC clearly indicates that such a recent flipflopping will be disruptive. Therefore, ban a move to "Deadmau5" for 3 months as being disruptive. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Let's let a neutral third party make that call, not someone who just voted for Deadmaus. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
And when you're the one who's arguing it isn't disruptive? You didn't make that suggestion earlier. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppo5e move back to deadmau5
  • Further propo5e u5ing 'deadmau5 text' acro55 WP until move i5 made seriou5ly thi5 is getting idiotic. Plenty of point5 made above to 5upport the move back. There was not con5enu5 in the original debate and it wa5 clo5ed too quickly. I under5tand we have to wait 3 month5 until we can reque5t a move again. Let5 wait and get thi5 fixed. Eleutherius (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Why would we wait if we can change it back to Deadmau5 right now? Do you support changing the name to Deadmau5? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I5 the pope a catholic? Hell ye5 move back to Deadmau5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleutherius (talk • contribs) 00:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I think by using this styling you've ably demonstrated exactly why it shouldn't be at "Deadmau5"! --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Ha, yeah, that felt like an own goal. Wetdogmeat (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we have. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Ohconfucius I shall quote "WP:COMMONNAME" for you since you apparently need some help. "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. This is often referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term: "COMMONNAME"" Now... since 27million hits for Deadmau5 over 80,000 to Deadmaus, which do you think is the most recognizable? The one used 27,000,000 times? or the one used 80,000 times? Please also read WP:STAGENAME since his name is deadmau5 and not deadmaus. — -dainomite   04:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The common name is "Deadmaus". It just happens to be styled as "Deadmau5". We do not follow vanity stylings. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
This is kind of awkward, but I have to disagree with you here, Rob...  — TORTOISEWRATH 05:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Note this is a move discussion to Joel Zimmerman not to Deadmou5 which was closed as no move. Further discussion on a move to Deadmous5 is just disruptive. Keith D (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparently a "third option" is a common factor in RM discussions. I mean consensus has clearly changed. Is there a policy saying that you cannot discuss a move back within "x number of days?" Or is that just a tradition in wikipedia RM discussions? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
No it doesn't because "Ke$ha" is actually a minority name compared to "Kesha", a more popular name. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of sources use "Deadmau5". "Deadmaus" is used by pretty much no one (relatively speaking - sure, 183000 is a big number, but it's orders of magnitude smaller than 30,000,000). MidnightRequestLine (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Um, did you even bother googling that? I get 2.5m hits for kesha -ke$ha and 122m for ke$ha -kesha. Wetdogmeat (talk) 04:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes I have googled that. As pointed out above, googling is not research, and I believe there's an explanation for that, something to do with the way the search engine works. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Because it makes no sense to me that "Ke$ha" by itself gets 80m hits, and then "ke$ha -kesha" gets 123m, MORE than "ke$ha" alone. Something is wrong with that. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 04:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
LMAO. This from the guy whose SOLE argument is the quantity of Google hits! You couldn't make this stuff up. Wetdogmeat (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Google hits are not my sole argument on anything. I am all about reliable sources. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - while I would rather it be called Deadmau5, I feel this is a much better alternative than Deadmaus as it is an actually name he is referred to by - while Deadmau5 is the most common, this is still a better alternative than Deadmaus. Oddbodz (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
If you want it to be called Deadmau5, then oppose this and suggest Deadmau5 instead. there's no rule against recommending Deadmau5.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm supporting this because I would rather this than the current Deadmaus. Oddbodz (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
But just for the record, if this RM results in a decision between the current article title and "Deadmau5", which would you prefer? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
You don't have to support this, you can oppose Zimmerman, and support Deadmau5 at the same time. You don't have to move it to an interim title.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
As I mentioned elsewhere, this question has no answer, as there is no bright line that can be drawn. Generally, there is *one* clear bright line, which is no foreign characters that aren't roman - so cryllic, chinese, arabic etc are out. However, diacritics on roman characters, punctuation, and numbers all seem permitted. It just then becomes case by case. I can promise you, if Deadmau5 was actually called /\3A/\MA|_|5, this wouldn't even be a dispute - even if Billboard called him that - it's really a matter of degree, and Deadmau5 is a single character, at the end, and widely used in RS, but it's also a number playing the role of an S, so it falls right into fuzzy fuzzy fuzzy land. Sorry...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The objective difference is that one is an unpronounced decorative glyph and the other is an entire unpronounced decorative character. The difference for our purposes, I think, is that for English-speaking readers, the decorative glyph (much like the decorative punctuation in Oliver!) does not pose the potential legibility problem that the 1337 characters do. That said, I'm no fan of the unpronounced decorative punctuation either, but it is a lesser evil. I agree with Obi-Wan Kenobi, of course, that there is a grey area here. Wetdogmeat (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
It's only a grey area if you are thinking in terms of an across the board wikiwide "rule" ... but if you think about it in subject specific terms it becomes black and white. WP:COMMONNAME is a subject specific application that was created precisely to help us navigate hard cases. And the point about it having to be determined on a case by case basis is exactly the point those of us who look to WP:COMMONNAME have been trying to make. This has nothing to do with any other article topic, or wikiwide rules. The fact that Deadmau5 is the COMMONNAME in this case, does not mean Se7en is the COMMONNAME in that case (it might or might not be). Each COMMONNAME determination is unique and applicable only to articles about that one specific topic. I would not come down so solidly on the "Deadmau5" side if it were not for the fact that this variant is so overwhelmingly the COMMONNAME. I certainly am not a fan with preconcieved notions... I'm a clueless over 50 person, who had no idea who the guy was, or even that he existed before stumbling upon this debate... I have never heard his music or seen him perform. Yet it quickly became obvious, even to my ancient eyes, what the COMMONNAME was in this case. But that has no bearing on any other case. Blueboar (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, on the potential legibility problem - I'm not a fan either (I only finally listened to some of his music on Spotify the other day because of this debate), but I'd seen his name in print in a few places online, and had always assumed it was pronounced "dead mau five". I'd be wary of granting 1337 (which is just nonsense typographical stylisation) the same status as something like an umlaut (which is an actual glyph with a practical function in many actual languages). On WP:UCN - I'm of the opinion that "Deadmaus" and "Deadmau5" are the same name styled differently, and since WP:UCN makes no mention of style and decoration, I think "Deadmaus" satisfies that policy just as well as "Deadmau5", because it's not an issue of spelling, but of decoration. Wetdogmeat (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I thought it was pronounced "dead mao five" as well... until I read the very first sentence of the article. I don't think pronunciation is a factor in choosing a title, nor does it affect COMMONNAME. There are a lot of names that are not pronounced the way they look (I am reminded of the bit from the movie Young Frankenstein... "Its pronounced Frahhn-ken-schteeen"). And forget words with diacritics... I have no idea how to pronounce all those funny squiggles. Yet I accept that sometimes COMMONNAME indicates that a name with funny squiggles is the best one to use as an article title.
Actually a significant minority of people (real life fans!) do pronounce it "Dead-mow-five", much more than those who write it "Deadmaus". I don't think legibility is a serious problem. Most people know how you're supposed to pronounce it, even those unfamiliar with leetspeak. And there's a reason we had "(pronounced "dead mouse")" in the first sentence of this article for many years. It worked just fine for years until you started the first RM. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
You don't have to answer this if you prefer not to, but I would be curious to know what rough age bracket do you fall into? I ask because the legibility of leet characters might be a generational thing. I suspect that most editors under 40 will be significantly more familiar with leet than older editors like me (all that text messaging). Blueboar (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
My concern about legibility is unconnected to my interpretation of WP:UCN. My position on WP:UCN is that "Deadmaus" satisfies it just as "Deadmau5" does, because they're the same name decorated differently, and WP:UCN makes no mention of decoration; in fact, on the issue of style, it defers to MOS:TM, which contains the directly analogous canonical example of "Seven/Se7en", indicating a discouragement of leet decorations where viable standard English alternatives exist. I'm in my late twenties, I've been using the internet for 15 years and I'm very familiar with leet; as I said before, if his name was styled "Deadmou5e" (or even a fully witchy "ЀΔÐMΔV5"), I would've seen it immediately, but there's no reason to read "Deadmau5" as "dead mouse" unless you already know that's how it's pronounced (or maybe have seen a picture of him in his mouse costume). Wetdogmeat (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
It's not perfectly analogous to Seven/Se7en because only a minority of sources call it "Se7en", whereas the majority use "Seven". While I still maintain that googling is not research, "Seven film" gives 533m google hits, while "Se7en film" only gives 4.46m. In other words, 99.17% of google hits for the film call it "Seven". The same is not true for Deadmau5. The overwhelming majority use Deadmau5, and an insignificant minority (accidentally) used Deadmaus. We should go with whatever the most common name is, and whichever one is used in the highest quality reliable sources, which is indisputably Deadmau5. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say it was an analogous scenario, I said it was an analogous example, which it is. And you ignored my comments on WP:UCN, in the context of which I cited the example, making a nonsense of the whole thing. I can't believe you ignored an inconvenient point. I've fallen over with shock. Wetdogmeat (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Wetdogmeat, let me make this clear to you - you write a lot of stuff. I don't have time to respond to every single thing you write. Now, in regards to WP:UCN - I didn't even know what that meant since we've been using WP:COMMONNAME this whole debate. And I am more likely to look up things you talk about if you put [[ ]] those around them. Not responding to one of your points does not make "a nonsense of the whole thing". You write more things than I can keep up with, on several talk pages. Give me a freaking break.
Now. Your "position on WP:UCN is that "Deadmaus" satisfies it just as "Deadmau5" does, because they're the same name decorated differently, and WP:UCN makes no mention of decoration; in fact, on the issue of style, it defers to MOS:TM."
First of all, where does it defer to WP:MOSTM? I understand you're little semantic argument that "they're the same word stylized differently", but I don't think that argument holds much weight. I foresee you saying something like "oh, well no one cares about your personal opinion of how much weight an argument holds", to which I say that I think most people here agree with me and that's why they are all voting for Deadmau5. I don't think it's true that they are the same word stylized differently. And even if they were, I don't think that means we can't use Deadmau5. I think Deadmau5 is by far used much more commonly than Deadmaus, and that's what WP:COMMONNAME/WP:UCN is all about. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
This is absolutely high comedy. I asked you these questions directly on your own talk page, several times, and what did you do? You bloody well know what you did. You deleted the entire conversation in the hopes that it would make me "go away". So don't pretend your refusal to answer the questions, which you have been asked over and over and over, has anything to do with not being able to keep up with all my arguments (I have been making a small handful of arguments, repeatedly.) Wetdogmeat (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
1) The deferral is in WP:TITLETM where it says "For further information, see MOS:TM". 2) Um, yes, you're spot on - I don't care whether you personally feel the argument holds weight; if the argument is flawed, show me how it's flawed, show me how the concept of spelling applies to numbers and geometric shapes and monetary symbols and emoticons. If it doesn't, then "Deadmaus" and "Deadmau5" are not spelled differently, are not different words, and therefore are not different names. They are the same name styled differently. 3) Your final remark shows that you don't really understand my argument on WP:UCN, because I have NEVER ONCE claimed that the more popular style is "Deadmaus", it is clearly "Deadmau5", but that is a STYLE, and not a SPELLING. Just as "ЀΔÐMΔV5" is not a distinct spelling, neither is "Deadmau5". They are the same word, decorated differently, a difference which WP:UCN does not apply to. Wetdogmeat (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you've made a small handful of arguments, but you've made them 1000 times on several different pages. You also asked me 200 other questions on my talk page. It is hard to keep up. And it's usually best to keep things on one page, exactly for this purpose. That's why I wanted to quell the discussion on my talk page. Please don't drag it over here. I am really trying to answer everything you say, but sometimes when people make comments in rapid succession, you miss things.
I didn't think that you claimed that Deadmaus is more popular. I was just stating that because that is why I believe this page should use Deadmau5.
WP:TITLETM is not really a part of WP:COMMONNAME. In other words, you said that WP:COMMONNAME defers to WP:MOSTM. It doesn't. And why does WP:COMMONNAME not apply to here? Because there is no example? Those are just examples. It's application is not limited to those examples. It talks about trademarks in the third paragraph. I think that WP:COMMONNAME surely does apply here and there's no need to go further. WP:COMMONNAME is a policy. WP:MOSTM is a guideline and it says at the top of the page that exceptions will apply.
Anyway, this is going to get rather abstract and I hope this makes sense to everyone, but I don't think they are the same word. I am a strong advocate of common sense, the possession of which I believe should convince you that this article's title should be Deadmau5. Usually when editors try to go into in depth logical proofs, there is an element of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Wikipedia does not trust editors to perform them. It wants us to use sources. That is not to say that we should not be logical, please don't get me wrong. But when we try to deduce and/or infer things that are not explicitly stated in sources, we often turn out to be wrong. See also WP:SYNTH (not saying that applies to this case, but it's along the lines of what I'm saying). But anyway, after that little tangent, here we go......
There is nothing to "show". Can you "show" me how they are the same word. It's just an opinion on where to draw the line. There is no formal logical proof. It's like the existence of god. Some people believe. Some people don't. But neither of us can prove it. I really don't know how else to put this.
Also, Deadmau5 is pronounced "dead mouse", not "dead maus", which is pronounced differently from "mouse" (maws vs mowse). The standard English spelling is "mouse", not "maus". So in my opinion the 5 is standing in for "se", not just "s", and the a is also a stylization of an o. But honestly this is silly WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Really, we don't know how "Deadmau5" is supposed to be spelled if "translated to standard English" (whatever that even means). Although I think a single 5 is not that un-standard - but that's just me using common sense.
In conclusion, I took up way more room than I ever intended too. I think we are analyzing ourselves into oblivion here and entering the realm of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Please use common sense. And I think the fact that most people here agree with me shows that common sense is the best way to go. Please see Truth by consensus and Consensus theory of truth. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Responding to the comment about the metal umlaut and the use of diacritics, I notice that no one has yet brought up WP:DIACRITICS, which seems to generally permit this. So I don't see the metal umlaut as being much of an exception to the general policy. In English, we can generally get along with simply ignoring diacritics when we see them – many English speakers have no idea how a diacritic would affect pronunciation, and it's kind of obvious that most uses of the metal umlaut are just goofing around with the letters for fun and don't cause confusion (e.g., "Mötley Crüe" and "Löded Diper", although the latter one is not actually an article title). I think the issue with "Deadmau5" (and "Tech N9ne" and "Se7en") are that substituting a number for a letter is more of an unusual character substitution, making it more confusing to the reader as well as being simply decoractive (as in "Macy*s" and "[ yellow tail ]"). Actually, the exact wording of WP:DIACRITICS might also permit "Deadmau5" if we interpret the "5" as a "modified letter", although I'm not personally sure it's intended to be interpreted that way. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Weak Support. Joel Zimmerman is still a better name than Deadmaus, an extreme minority spelling, but Deadmau5 is still the best. Quite frankly, I don't even know why the page got changed in the first place. If there's any proof that deadmau5 is the correct name, this is it. The previous link shows a clear WP:COMMONNAME rationale for the name "Deadmau5". I also strongly believe that as per WP:COMMONNAME, you cannot use other pages' names as rationale for a name change on this page. Some users have provided this as rationale and I do not agree - all you're doing is changing the name to one suggested by rogue sources and one that practically no one recognizes. I've read the previous comments, and I highly believe we can get WP:CONSENSUS on a permanent change to Deadmau5. smileguy91talk 02:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, the trends for “Deadmaus” (“S” instead of “5”) vs “Deadmou5” (“O” instead of “A”) are just about identical. —Frungi (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Not surprising. As I have said many times, Deadmaus is no more of a word than Deadmauz or Deadmaws. In fact, Deadmauz has 245,000 ghits, 62,000 more than Deadmaus! This is seriously a ridiculous title. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • CHANGE IT BACK I don't get what the big deal is here. This is so incredibly frustrating, you have no idea what kind of stress it's causing me. The artist name is "deadmau5." He did not write "deadmaus" on his album covers, t-shirts, websites, legal documents, in articles and so on. If he wanted his named to be spelled "deadmaus," he would've spelled it that way. The MAJORITY of the people here want the change the name back to the original and correct form of "deadmau5." I honestly and genuinely don't care if you like it that way or with an "s." IT'S NOT YOUR NAME TO DECIDE TO CHANGE! If my name is "Mikel" (pronounced like Michael), YOU CANNOT CHANGE THE SPELLING OF MY NAME TO "MICHAEL" just because YOU feel it's "proper." Whoever is spelling it "deadmaus" is either A) an idiot or B) a person who clearly made a typo. Also, I don't appreciate whoever deleted my whole 5 paragraph argument earlier today. It took me like an hour to type that up and it was a damn good argument that you clearly disagreed with. From now on, I'm saving all my replies so if someone deletes them again, I can just keep copying/pasting. In short, the majority of people want it spelled "deadmau5," the ARTIST HIMSELF wants it spelled "deadmau5," the fans want it spelled "deadmau5," (if they didn't, they'd be purposely misspelling it, which they don't). What more argument do you need. IT IS RIGHT! IT IS LEGAL! AND IT CAN BE PUNISHABLE IN A COURT OF LAW BECAUSE IT IS CONSIDERED VANDALISM OF A TRADEMARK! Get this through your thick skulls. I don't care about your policies or guidelines. Let's just break the "rules" (rules which don't even exist) this once, and let it be. Stop fighting so hard for something, because I'm extremely determined to get this fixed and I won't stop fighting, I don't care how long it takes. I will appeal, appeal and appeal again until it gets fixed. This could go on for years. (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.45.224.215 (talk) (Note: this message was moved from a policy discussion page by User:Frungi)
Oh definitely laughing his ass off. He would want something like this to happen. Really, people spelling deadmau5 wrong is sort of a running joke among Zimmerman and his fans. And Deadmaus is pretty much the worst and most ignorant way you could spell it, which is why it is was so shocking to many people that this article is titled Deadmaus. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy break

Support - In case of extreme unusual symbolism or form the common English rendering holds true over the stylistic one. Prince (musician) is not some variant of Ƭ̵̬̊ or the depiction as seen in the article. Notice the "Artist formerly known as" is also not present in the title. The example is proper under WP:COMMONNAME which extends to the mononym "Prince" instead of Prince Rogers Nelson. Common name also applies to Bill Clinton. Why? Internationally, a single preferred form has been pushed in media and the subject themselves as an identity outside of "stage life". Now I direct you to Tupac Shakur not 2PAC or PAC. Given the issue surrounding "deadmaus", "deadmau5", "deadmouse" or "Dead mau five"; the name "Joel Zimmerman" seems to be a a clear winner to end the debate. It will join the dozens of others which do not use their stage name as a common name in daily life, as seen at GA's like Dwayne Johnson. The simple fact he is addressed and interacts in life as "Joel" is evidence of that. Stage and common name are not inseparable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You have to be kidding me. We have general consensus and policy on our side (Deadmau5) and the page still hasn't been moved. Is WP:COMMONNAME still being ignored?! smileguy91talk 22:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a move discussion on going at the moment to an article title of "Joel Zimmerman" which has several days to run yet. The move to Dedmau5 was closed as no move and the move review ratified this. Keith D (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The move review never ratified this. The move review was rigidly constrained (see the closing statement), despite protests, that it was only in reference to the first move (from deadmau5 to deadmaus) and there was a refusal to even consider the second move. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Once this move request is over and if the article is not moved I will be taking the liberty of moving it back to it's stable title of Deadmau5 per WP:COMMONNAME, common sense and the obvious consensus to do so! PantherLeapord (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The process you guys got here needs to improve if this is the outcome.Moxy (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
(to Pantherleapord) Clearly its not; and if you do so I will personally ensure that it goes to DRN or ANI; and you got a strong case for why the legal name is preferential over a various versions of a stage name. Redirects can go anywhere; but there seems to be a large amount of strife over maus/mau5/etc. to begin with; something that is avoided by going to the common name which he is addressed by and uses in daily life. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Which in this case is Deadmau5! As the person is notable for the Deadmau5 persona they are more commonly referred to as Deadmau5! WP:COMMONNAME clearly states the following:
Lady Gaga (not: Stefani Germanotta)
Caffeine (not: 1,3,7-Trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione)
Down syndrome (not: Trisomy 21)
Fuchsia (not: Lady's ear drops)
Guinea pig (not: Cavia porcellus)
The Hague (not: 's-Gravenhage)
If you want to ignore this policy then by all means; go right ahead... watch what happens! PantherLeapord (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Stop being so dramatic you are taking this like its a battle or something. First of all Gaga is a stage name yes; but there is no confusion about pronunciation, usage or identification with alternative or style examples. Its Macy's not Macy*s. Caffeine is common name; we do not use chemical names if they have a layman's or common term. Same with Down syndrome. And oh wait, Fuchsia is a genus; which is under its designation NOT its common name which is Lady's ear drops and that is a variant name. OOPS? Guinea pig is another common name example like Lion; latin designations here are fairly consistant and that's the point of common name. "The Hague" is official and its a city and its most commonly referenced in the ICC. None of these have disputes or stylization issues to worry about except "Macy*s", stick with comparing apples to apples. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There IS NO confusion on the pronunciation of the name. You are just creating confusion so you can have a straw to cling to in order to keep the article here while the rest of the proverbial hay bale is over at Deadmau5! PantherLeapord (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree no need for threats - but I can see why so many are so frustrated. We had a stable title that was moved - it was then contested - with the outcome being the ignoring of the majority and a few policies because of bureaucracy. I dont see how anyone can see the original move as productive and non disruptive at this point.Moxy (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think PantherLeapord was making a threat. He was pointing out that as long as this article stays at "Deadmaus", anyone who reads it who has heard of the guy is probably going to think "why the hell?" - and this is exactly what WP:COMMONNAME is supposed to prevent. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 23:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but shouldn't you folks be taking part in the ongoing requested move discussion above instead of restarting the whole conversation and repeating it all down here again? —BarrelProof (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It's been integrated. Also; I'd like to point out that numerous reliable sources address Zimmerman in their article's but tie in as a subject of clarity.[3] Also this article has severe issues with reliable sources. Youtube is not a RS. Linking to deadmau5 which reads "Bitch, shut the fuck up and go make me a sandwich. That is all." in archive.org is not proof he owns it. I'd expect if people were going to nitpick about a title change; they'd at least make sure the content is reasonably fine as well, but its not. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

In response to PantherLeapord: There actually is confusion on the pronunciation—more than one editor on this page has sincerely said that he thought the “5” was to be read as “five”. But if the below discussion about Deadmau5 himself pronouncing it that way is true, and it is an acceptable pronunciation (I can’t say either way, myself), then both are right, so confusion is moot. In fact, “Deadmaus” cannot be read as “dead-mao-five”, so the current title causes confusion, if anything. —Frungi (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Another point being continually over looked is that reliable sources (not Google trend hits which account for the majority of "Deadmau5 download" and "Deadmau5 mp3") consistently use his real last name when discussing his life, work and career. The title in the paper may read "Deadmau5" but as pointed out two posts above; the name used throughout the source (as noted by WP:COMMONNAME) uses Zimmerman. If anything; the usage in these reliable sources are the reason why the move is proper. If the common name prevails wouldn't the common name change the tone of this article from "Zimmerman" to "Deadmau5" for every instance per that change? Please note that this is in use for Prince (musician) with "Prince" not the legal last name of "Nelson" being used to identify and address the subject throughout the entirety of the article. That is another reason why this "title" matter is important; the article currently addresses the subject by name; and last name is preferred, but if the "Common Name" prevails then the switch must also apply. And the shortening "Lady Gaga" to "Gaga" like a defacto name or honorific shortening also is in play at Lady Gaga. Just so we are clear about the depth of its implications. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
‘Google trend hits which account for the majority of "Deadmau5 download" and "Deadmau5 mp3"’—Actually, no, not at all, as you can see from this Trends search. In fact, the “mp3” and “download” searches rank about as high as “Deadmaus”. Compare Ke$ha/Kesha: the name with the dollar sign is significantly less popular than without. —Frungi (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I was more referring to the "XXX download", "XXX lyrics" and "XXX skrillex" which are music information searches unrelated to the individual. The same applies with most artists that have a stage name for any length of time. Even songs like "99 Luftballons" have a "common name" of 99 Red Balloons for its popular international release, but one does not rewrite for localization. I was intending that the way the subject is referred to in reliable sources, in-depth ones, should be considered against the noise of Google. But I've pointed out the issue above as well; I don't think I can make a stronger argument then my ones above. I dunno; this "Trademark" argument spillover got me here; but this move is not about a trademark at all; with that argument put to rest, anything else from proper policy and not emotional !votes should resolve the issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
In a discussion this confusing, a !vote tally is an unnecessary distraction. The closing admin will be able to gauge consensus, without such tallies which will confuse new !voters and will always be out of date. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

!Vote tally so far...

Note: the numbers below are completely wrong. 22 people have expressed a desire to change the name to Deadmau5. Don't simply count the number of people who said literally "Oppose - change back to deadmau5". Also count the ones who said "Support - Joel Zimmerman is better than Deadmaus, but Deadmau5 would be best." We need to stop approaching wikipedia like robots following commands. You are supposed to perform critical thinking. These are the 22 people that expressed a desire to change the name to Deadmau5:

MidnightRequestLine, blueboar, moxy, skookum1, barrelproof, andydingley, filelakeshoe, djunbalanced, helicopter llama, insulam simia, resolute, bobrayner, croctotheface, eo, frungi, eleutherius, dainomite, oddbodz, smileguy91, 64.45.224.215, nb07wiki, pantherleapord

And btw, for the people who wrote "oppose", that does not mean they oppose Deadmau5, it just means they oppose Zimmerman. This section is very, very misleading. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Special thanks to MidnightRequestLine for pointing out how I had miscounted one of the numbers! PantherLeapord (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Still supporting the move back to Deadmau5, and I don't get the guy who's saying "it doesn't matter if more people want it changed back, it matters on the arguments." We, the guys who want it changed back to the correct name, have had the best arguments by far, and that's not even a subjective statement. We've proven that more sources refer to his name spelled correctly, we've proven that the artist himself has that name legally trademarked, it follows the correct common name policy, and we've proven that this same situation (of "special, non pronounceable characters) occurs on other pages that you seem to not even care about. I'm 250% certain we've made more than enough of a great argument to have it changed back, but you for some unknown reason refuse to accept it.

Also, to the guys who are trying to argue about the Macy's logo and the Kesha logo. You're both getting names and logos confused. "Macy's" is the name, a star as an apostrophe is part of the logo. Same goes for Kesha. "Kesha" is her name, "Ke$ha" was a logo design for an album cover. "Kesha" is her legal name, common name and her trademark stage name. We can compare this to the company "VeriSign." That's the companies name, and their logo has a checkmark for the "V." You don't pronounce it as "checkmark erisign" because that's not it's name. You may think I'm sounding contradictory, except for the fact that "Deadmau5" IS the legal and trademarked name, not "deadmaus." In short, "Deadmau5" is a name AND a logo, not one or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.45.224.215 (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Support move to Joel Zimmerman: 7
Oppose move to Joel Zimmerman: 26
Move back to Deadmau5: 22

Current Support/Oppose ratio (Literally support count divided by oppose count. Rounded to 2 decimal places): 0.27

Counts based on bolded statements as of 7:00 AM on the 22nd of June 2013 (GMT+8) PantherLeapord (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Please note that I just now changed my oppose to neutral (and it’s also still a move back). And feel free to remove this comment if you update. —Frungi (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the update! Counts updated (1 oppose removed). PantherLeapord (talk) 07:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you forget that it is not a straw poll or a democracy? It does not matter how many purely emotional objections or "me-too" opposes exist, it is the weight of the arguments. When discussed in reliable sources a clear preference for Joel or Zimmerman exists. The stagename applies to searches for music, tours, lyrics and downloads which bulk out like any other artist. If the subject is best known as Deadmau in reliable sources you need to prove that; and many refer to him by name not another alias. Remember it's not "2pac" but "Tupac Shakur". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Experienced admins are more than capable of summarising the state of play when they close the discussion. Any attempt by non-admins to produce a tally as above is a blatant attempt t0 influence the outcome of the close. Nevertheless, I have every confidence it will be closed according to the weight of argument. I also expect account will be duly take of the trojan horse – the term "disruptive" has been used above, but I'm not actually going that far – nature of this RM, and that there is a strong possibility that fan-boys of the dead mouse (or is it "dead mau five"?) have mobilised to overturn a WP:IDONTLIKEIT decision that was taken by the community and endorsed at Move Review only days ago. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    If what you are saying is true then why was the move review not even considered despite consensus CLEARLY opposing the move from Deadmau5 to this nonsensical title? PantherLeapord (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The move review was not considered because a move review had already happened. You can't do two move reviews on the SAME MOVE. What's done is done. There's a new RM, just let it run it's course.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
PantherLeapord, you REALLY need to learn to assume good faith. I read over the first RM, and I think it was a fair close, given the arguments mooted. I also read the first move review, and I also agree with that finding. A different argument may give a different result. In the meantime, you should SERIOUSLY consider reading WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I think you're new here, so I'm giving you some leeway, but stop besmirching good faith actions of others just because the result is something you disagree with.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Break 2

  • Strong move to Deadmau5 I was originally opposed to this RM happening at all, given that an RM (2, in fact), already happened and closed, as well as a move review. Consensus in the first close was for a move, and I think that was the right call given the arguments presented at the time and the weight of oppose vs support views. However, no-one stopped the creation of this third RM, so here we are. Frankly, I think it's silly that we're !voting on Joel Zimmerman. Nothing prevents us from proposing Deadmau5, and it just seems like an end-run around the rules, but whatever. Policy points aside, now that we're here, we should move it to the right name rather than moving it to an interim name very few are satisfied with and which will just result in another RM later.
Deadmau5 is the right name for the following reasons, per WP:CRITERIA (Note, this is a POLICY)
  • Recognizability – Anyone who is familiar with Deadmau5 music will recognize Deadmau5. Anyone who is not familiar, will still understand it as either 'deadmaus' or 'deadmau-five', both of which are used/pronounced by the fan base and thus either interpretation is fine.
  • Naturalness – "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles." Deadmau5 has around 400 incoming links to it. Deadmaus has less than 50. Deadmau5 vs Deamaus in google searches by users is a joke (in other words, what do users search for?). Deadmaus barely registers.
  • Precision – "The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." Deadmau5 is clearly precise, there is no other artist with a name like this.
  • Conciseness – "The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." Deadmau5 is equally concise as Deadmaus.
I note that Deadmaus and Deadmau5 are equally concise, Deadmau5 has a slight edge in terms of precise because it maps so cleanly to the artist's official name, but Deadmau5 just destroys Deadmaus on recognizability and naturalness. Deadmau5 is also preferable to Joel Zimmerman for the same reasons - more recognizeable, more natural, and more concise.
You can also make an ironclad argument for Deadmau5 in terms of WP:COMMONNAME, which states that wikipedia "prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources."
There have been many google searches bandied about in this discussion, but I reject almost ALL of them. Raw google searches are completely useless, as the number returned is simply a guesstimate, and is often off by one or more orders of magnitude. Thus, please don't use raw google searches, read WP:GOOGLE. Source specific searches of reliable sources are much better, like the following, which I've chosen before knowing the results: Rolling Stone, Billboard, Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Economist. These are hardly fan-boy sources, so they can be expected to use the COMMON spelling: (note: per CG note below, I added Joel Zimmerman searches)
Source Deadmau5 Deadmaus Joel Zimmerman
Rolling Stone 136 hits 1 hit 15 hits
NY Times 73 hits(click to end to get actual hits) 5 hits 18 hits
Washington Post 62 hits 0 hits 3 hits
Wall Street Journal 27 hits (click on "4 years") 1 hit 4 hits
Economist 2 hits 0 hits 0 hits
Billboard 6 artist hits, 11 albums, 12 songs, 152 articles, 29 photos/videos 5 photos 1 artist, 22 articles, 2 photos
Thus, if we forget about millions of hits on fan blogs and other non-reliable-sources, which we should, and just look at serious journalistic publications, Deadmau5 wins by at least an order of magnitude, which is what I look for in these sorts of things, and sometimes SEVERAL orders of magnitude. Note that I used the search engines built into the site; if you search using google against the site, you sometimes get larger numbers, but again you have to click through to the end. For example, Google search of Rolling stone, click through to end, of Deadmau5 gives 548 results, whereas the same search with Deadmaus gives 20 results (click through to the end).
We can also look at books: Deadmau5 in books, eliminating billboard magazine and wikipedia/llc stuff gives around 50, while Deadmaus indicates around 29, but many are for a heretofore unknown-to-this-conversation Deadmaus island!
Ok, that's all pretty convincing, and all completely based on policy, but wait! Isn't that a 5?? Don't we have a MOS:TM rule? Yes, Virginia, we do. Now, first things first, MOS:TM is a guideline, NOT a policy. Secondly, MOS:TM is referred to, from WP:AT. MOS:TM is not about article titles, it is about use of trademarks, anywhere. But this is what WP:AT says: "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark". Now, did we just prove that above? Yes, we did. Even Wetdogmeat, who brought the first move, admits that Deadmau5 is more common. So we don't really need to beat that dead horse anymore. Let's just admit that Deadmau5 wins on WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME, and Wikipedia:TITLETM#Standard_English_and_trademarks. The way I read that text, it MODIFIES the standard MOS:TM language, to say, for a title (since you only get one shot), use the spelling per the trademark, *if* it's the most common usage. We demonstrated that above, in spades. There's been a lot of debate - is Deadmau5 a spelling, or a "style"? Per Leet, the use of numbers forms an alternative alphabet in leet-speak, and what do you do with alphabets? You spell words! So, while I'm not a linguist, I still declare that Deadmau5 is a different SPELLING than Deadmaus, and arguments that it is simply a "styling" seem a bit wikilawyerish.
Now, let's get into MOS:TM, which says "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words (e.g., ♥ used for "love"). In the article about a trademark, it is acceptable to use decorative characters the first time the trademark appears, but thereafter, an alternative that follows the standard rules of punctuation should be used:" You need to read that second sentence carefully. It says, the first time you give the trademark, you can use the decorative characters! And what is the first time the reader will see the trademark? In the title!
One more dragon to kill here WP:MOSAT vs Wikipedia:BANDNAME#Bands.2C_albums_and_songs. BANDNAME says do not replicate stylized typography. Ouch - arrow to the heart. But wait! WP:MOSAT, which is POLICY (not guidance), says the following: "Wikipedia has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains...Sometimes these recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name... This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names" Now, has anyone demonstrated a clear benefit for Deadmaus vs Deadmau5? Do wikipedia editors have trouble linking to it (No - 400 of them did so, vs 50 for Deadmaus). Do users have trouble searching for Deadmau5? No, they overwhelmingly search for him at Deadmau5. Thus, IMO, no tangible benefit demonstrated by having it at Deadmaus, and thus I feel comfortable chucking WP:BANDNAME out the window.
This case is particularly interesting, if rather over-dramatized, because we have a clear case of WP:COMMONNAME colliding with one small part of MOS:TM and WP:BANDNAME. My opinion is, throw them both out the d*mn window, invoke WP:IAR if we have to. It is getting in the bloody way, and it is only a guideline anyway. We judge things on a case-by-case basis, and this one is not a close call, with 500 hits for Deadmaus and 500 hits for Deadmau5 and encyclopedias calling him one thing and trade rags calling him another. The sources provided in the last RM for Deadmaus were, to be blunt, terrible. I mean, I assume good faith of the nominator, but those were the worst sources I've ever had the misfortune to have to read through. Yes, even Rolling Stone has a few hits - but VERY few hits compared to the hundreds for Deadmau5. It's simply not the same ballpark.
Use of the term Deadmau5 is so universal it actually surprised me when I did the research - the world has simply embraced his leet-spelling, god bless him. He's become like Mötley Crüe - he used an invented spelling, and the world bought it.
Finally, let's address the final bugbear, on which many "move" arguments were made: Se7en vs Seven (film). I checked the archives, to find out, why did they move it? The discussion was short, but one argument that was made by a few was that use of Se7en was not universal. Indeed, if you look in sources today, this still holds - for example:
So, different example, different results. If 99 out of 100 mentions were for Se7en, it would probably still be at that title. Thus we should not use the title of Seven (film) as an example to judge this one.
Just so you know where I'm coming from, I came across this as a move review discussion that was going nowhere; I'm not a fan of Deadmau5, I've heard of him but don't really know his music. I literally just did all of the searches above and I didn't know the results of any of the searches before selecting who/what to search, so I've tried to be honest, and build a case, based on policy, for where this article should live. My conclusion is, if you focus on policy, and chuck MOS:TM out the window (which is already superceded by Wikipedia:TITLETM#Standard_English_and_trademarks in any case specifically for titles), we end with Deadmau5 by a country mile, or more like 100 miles. It's not even close folks. I'm terribly sorry for our readers who don't know what a 5 means, but if we're willing to subject them to Lóðurr and Þorgerðr_Hölgabrúðr_and_Irpa and Ƴo_&_h³æ and Jón Jósep Snæbjörnsson, I think they can handle a wee 5.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
"I have to disclose that I have a COI; I'm a bit bitter at him in general, since he stole two different models I was dating right out from under my nose, the little sh*t :)" - Wait what!?!?!? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah... that's nice and all, but this RM is about the proper legal name of the person and not rehashing the mau5/maus matter; how about you pull up the cases of Zimmerman or Joel used in the article (not their headlines) which discuss the subject in detail. Outside of stage works the clear choice is "Zimmerman" for formality and "Joel" for casual usage and not an insistence upon "Deadmau-anything" when discussing the biography or life of the person. This is a biography; and "common name" does not mean "stage name". Prince (musician) refers and is addressed at "Prince" in public (not performing) life. So its really a strawman argument to say "hey deadmau5 beats deadmaus" and make a lengthy argument which is does not address the proposal and doesn't deal with MOS interpretation. A lot of effort could have been better spent comparing and arguing this; which has been largely unchallenged by the single purpose and dramafest of "the deadmau5/deadmaus" editors. This seems to be one distraction after another and I feel bad for whoever has to close this mess. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I must strenuously disagree. In any RM, people can propose whatever name they want - which is why I initially was opposed to this RM happening AT ALL, since it would turn into "rename it as Deadmau5" and that had been settled. But, such is life, we are here, and the voices are making themselves heard. What policy, exactly, are you referring to in your argument above Chris? I'm referring to WP:AT. I've added the searches - they are quite telling - Deadmau5 is still used at least 10x as much as Zimmerman in most cases. Check this: Rolling stone search for Deadmau5 articles that don't mention Zimmerman - many many results. There are whole articles about the guy that never mention his name. Deadmau5 is like Prince or Lady Gaga or whatever. And yes, COMMONNAME can be a stage name - Lady Gaga is explicitly called out as an example. Again, if you want to argue for Zimmerman, give me a policy-based argument, with quotes.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME which makes a few relevant points, "When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." and "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals". Going by that we arrive at the previous line, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." By this logic only material which discusses the subject, typically without the stage name with the constant "Zimmerman" or "Joel" shows that credible and authoritative reliable sources use it to refer to the subject outside of the initial "Deadmau" citation to tie in with cultural familiarity without breaking down and citing "Deadmau this" and "Deadmau that" throughout the article. Its usage in the article itself; as it shows here, seems obvious that we refer to as "Zimmerman" and not "Deadmau" makes more sense that the common name is the legal name. This stands in contrast to Prince where Prince is referred in public and private life by the mononym Prince; even when formality would imply last name preference. Its a big difference that is being avoided. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Cherry picking your statements as you have done in the above is not a very good thing to do in a debate! PantherLeapord (talk) 04:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Yup, it does say all of that - but what are the problems with Deadmau5? No-one has substantively demonstrated those yet. Secondly, the rest of your argument hinges on some sort of metaphysical argument of "are we talking about Deadmau5, or Joel"? In this case, they are one and the same (now, if Joel had a band, that would be different, but he doesn't). In any case, I provided you with hundreds of hits (at least) from Rolling Stone that discuss his life, work, music, etc, while never mentioning Zimmerman. I found this, for example [4]:"DeadMau5 is so shy that Von D spoke for him on the Grammys red carpet Sunday, but he said that no matter whether he wins, he's winning by marrying her." What part of your "this is a biography thus we should use the legal name" argument is based on policy? I've never heard this before, it seems a bit invented. Deadmau5 is the common name, that is easy to establish. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Watch the civility, PantherLeapord. Just to be clear, I was referring to how Rolling Stone addresses the subject in detail, like this.[5] It offers a complete, professional coverage with in-depth detail that consistently uses "Zimmerman", but identifies the better known stage name for the readers. Also I suppose WP:POVNAME applies because "Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious" seems to be entirely in-line with an encyclopedic work and given the contentious disputes surrounding it. We have a technical issues, MOS issues and a pronunciation issue combined with the unfamiliar reader aspect to contend with that is not addressed. If we move to the proper encyclopedic name; as we currently address the subject as, throughout the entirety of the article; it makes only sense that given the historical and serious nature of the work that we use the real name. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
We can refer to him in the article whatever way makes sense. I actually think Zimmerman probably would make more sense, in an encyclopedic-way, but thats not the issue under discussion here. And no, POVNAME does not apply - that whole section is about non-neutral names, which this isn't. How is Deadmau5 a colloquialism? That doesn't even make sense.
Finally, did you read the second line of the Rolling Stone article you cited? It says "Zimmerman, better known as the electronic-dance musician Deadmau5, is about to fly... ". I mean, Rolling Stone just handed us COMMONNAME on a platter. In any case, how we refer to the subject in text is different than how we refer to the subject in the title. You could take a clue from somewhere else, I dunno, perhaps the Rolling stone article that you brought up. What is the title again, of this article that talks about Zimmerman?? Um, "The Rise of Deadmau5". You keep on admitting that Deadmau5 is better known, but what exactly do you not like about it? Technical issue? Not sure what that is. MOS issue, I already dealt with above, there seems to be an exception for article titles in policy; and pronunciation issue? Where is that in the MOS or WP:AT??? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually; it is the issue here. A move request was made; closed to maus per TM and the move review also closed as endorsed. It seems that this is just re-challenging a contentious move when another option exists. The same applies with Kesha not Ke$ha and is probably the closest and most valid discussion that has come up time and time again. Deadmau5 doesn't even have a single valid pronunciation; we have two "official" ones which contradict each other and the whole "dead mouse" stylization runs counter to the consensus of Kesha. The "Ke$ha" is more popular argument was made as well. You also have to consider foreign and ESL readers will be confused as well as spoken word readers which fail to pronounce it. That is why "Ke-Dollar sign-ha" could be an issue like "Dead mau-five" when it is pronounced "Dead mouse". The stylization of the German "Maus" for Mouse renders the 5 as an S. This is stylistic and this is a TM issue. It is Toys "R" Us not "Toys Я Us" and its Seven not Se7en. I do not think the move request or the move review was wrong and another objection in immediate opposition is just re-rolling the dice. Normally, such move requests are shot down for a few months because a decision was just made. Also... clearly you think "Mouse" in your head and not "Mau-five" because "Mau-five" is how the spoken reader says it and that is a colloquialism because it is not used in formal speech; the stylization allows it to remain in writing however. The "Dead mouse" story is self-cited and the pronunciation is self-cited and "Dead Mau Five" is a disjointed and jarring mess. We don't throw this big of a fit for UK/USA dialect of English; but for the purposes of the title, it should be as it is pronounced which closest matches existing stylization, i.e. not "Dead mouse", for the benefit of all readers. A blind reader will always get the vocalization as "Dead Mau Five"; so it can be assumed that a literal reading will also be "Dead Mau Five" hence the reason why the stylization and unpronounced five was removed. That's why this argument is beyond just "what google says". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
See below section for more information on pronunciations of the name. When I see maus I do not think Mouse, but you find out the exact pronunciation when reading the lead of the article. The title of the article should be the most common name of the subject, which is substantially in favor of Deadmau5. The WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments need to stop as the first line of the MoS says exceptions can be made on a case to case basis. This is that case. STATic message me! 06:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
You're still failing to convince me, and you've drifted quite far from policy here. A couple of points:
  1. Is this an improper move discussion? In theory, yes. But in practice, here we are, so we can either have a discussion, or not. No admins are racing to the scene to shut it down, so, here it lives, and will live until it is shut down properly. I was trying to stop the discussion earlier, but I didn't go to the level of literally shutting it down, and it has blossomed, so it doesn't matter what anyone says anymore, the community is discussing, and they can move it to whatever the heck they want. Consensus can change.
  2. Who CARES if there are two pronunciations? Since when does a pronunciation have ANYTHING to do with a title? Guess what word doesn't appear in WP:AT? Pronunciation.
  3. Toys "R" Us and Seven (film) are OTHERSTUFF, and I already demonstrated why Se7en was a bad example, due to failing COMMONNAME. Show me usage in reliable sources of Toys Я Us. Wait, no-one uses it??[6] Well, then chuck that as ANOTHER BAD EXAMPLE.
  4. The rest of your argument is disjointed, sorry I can't follow it, it's fallen down a rabbit hole of how the thing is pronounced. I'm not sure why we've wasted such time on this, like the whole argument hinges on it. It doesn't. Some people say Deadmouse, some people say Dead-mou-five. WHO CARES??? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
If you are so upset by the application which has been twice cited as a reason for the move, then perhaps you should address that argument, right? Given the contentious name moving to one that is more encyclopedic is a suggested option; we in fact refer to Zimmerman throughout the entirety of the article and not as Deadmau5. Remember how Guinea pig refers to itself throughout the article as "Guinea pig"'s and not "Cavia porcellus"? The application of a "Common name" should be consistent throughout the article and mirror its title for clarity. Also I hate to keep repeating myself because you cannot follow the argument that has twice been affirmed; but per WP:TITLECHANGES Deadmaus seems to be a fine line that is "inventing" a name versus a stylistic one that should be prohibited as it is unpronounced. Referring to other cases like "Ke$ha" are valid because the same application has been made. Given that you, Obiwankenobi, feel that the better encyclopedic name is the legal name and not the stage name; why in light of this contentious issue do struggle against it so bitterly? If it puts the issue to rest and addresses TRADE, then it seems the logical and better reason to do so. Unless you seriously believe changing Zimmerman to Deadmau5 throughout the article as the "common name" ala Lady Gaga. For professionalism; Zimmerman is proper and should be reflected in the article title the same as it would be for the other names like BSOD and Halycon441. Also; to address a new obvious topic, please go to l33t and verify what the title is; this is another major reason why we do not use 1337, l33t, 133t, l337, el33t, etc. If this very issue prevails over the original "l33t", then it further adds weight to the move to Deadmaus; but the option to end the debate is best by the third option which is not "invented", and that is "Joel Zimmerman". Everyone screaming "common name" this and that refuses to address other cases (valid ones) or the arguments above. I can guarantee that someone will make a post of the likes: "I don't understand that, COMMON NAME is best omg111." below this. This is an exceptional case; but precedent exists and a better neutral name is presented so let's use that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
That argument HAS already been addressed! You just don't want to admit that it already has been addressed! PantherLeapord (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflicted) No one has anyone brought up the "leet" issue and how "Tech N9ne" was just changed to Tech nine per that same issue. Trade specifically says, "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words..." Deadmau5 pronounced "Dead mouse" self-cited by Zimmerman's own anecdotal references back that it is not "Dead Mau Five" and that it is an aberration to do so. If the original l33t-sp34k issue is turned to "leet" then this stylization should also be stripped; and given the contentious nature revert to Joel Zimmerman because we do not want to "invent" a new name. My arguments have not been rebuked or cited as flawed; even the lame WP:OTHERSTUFF comes from "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" and shows the ignorance of anyone passing it off as a counter to my argument. If you continue to say that this is IDHT; then you too fail to understand that it is you who are in the disagreement aspect because the move and its move review were affirmed. It seems abusive and draining on the productive resources to continue this; which is why I am pulling past consensus; past rationals; related decisions and relevant policies and pulling apart your arguments. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
No, Chris, you're using a shotgun approach, bringing up all sorts of disjointed and disconnected arguments. My case above is logically laid out and draws fully and ONLY from policy. In order to beat that, you need to do the same. Again, I will address your points:
  1. Leet vs L33t - one issue here is, there are many spellings of Leet, in leetspeak. More importantly, reliable sources USE Leet to describe l33tsp3ak or however you spell it. So we have a winner on COMMONNAME. Leet is in the dictionary as such [7]. The problem with your OSE arguments is, they have quite different fundamentals.
  2. Tech N9ne was proposed by the same proposer here, using the same arguments. I looked at this briefly, and there is likely a case to move this back, based on COMMONNAME usage in reliable sources, per WP:TITLETM. Personally, I think WP:OSE is overstated, and I think there are GOOD times to bring up other things, as they represent broader consensus elsewhere on the wiki. But I hope you can see here that consensus is swinging back the other way, for this particular musician. When you invoke OSE, like Ke$ha or Se7en or Tech N9ne you need to compare the cases on merits, not just say "X has a number in his name but it was stripped, therefore THIS one should be stripped" - you need to do more work than that. I also agree this is draining, and it's the ONLY reason I spent so much time and energy to prepare a robust case for Deadmau5. The evidence is there, the rough consensus is there, and per policy, it wins by a country mile. You are invoking lots of arguments, Chris, but none of them are based in policy, except perhaps IAR, but you haven't demonstrated why Deadmau5 harms the encyclopedia, or why Zimmerman would be so much better. I've demonstrated the opposite, above, for example looking at incoming links, and user searches. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Chris, your argument above is a bit more on-topic and less disjointed but it still has major flaws:
  1. "The application of a "Common name" should be consistent throughout the article and mirror its title for clarity" Where do you get this from? For example, Diana's article is called Diana, Princess of Wales, but she is called "Diana" throughout. Obama's article is called Barack Obama but he is called Obama throughout. If you're making these sort of OTHER-STUFF-EXISTS arguments, check out Category:Pseudonymous_musicians, which is chock full of musicians with articles titles at their stage names. The usage inside the article varies, but using their stage name is common, as is mixing (for example, using their real name when talking about childhood, etc). In any case, that sentence I quoted above is your own invention. I dont see it in policy, and I don't see it in practice.
  2. " For professionalism, Zimmerman is proper" I've yet to see this demonstrated. In fact, I demonstrated the opposite - through my searches of 6 reliable sources - 4 of them non-musical sources, Deadmau5 dominated in terms of usage. If Zimmerman was *also* used in those articles, we would see it in page hits, but it wasn't. Note, these hits were not about number-of-times-used-in-an-article, they were about whether the term is used at all. As such, we see many professional media outlets writing whole articles about Deadmau5 without ever mentioning Zimmerman. In any case, how we deal with this in the text is COMPLETELY irrelevant to this discussion, which is about the title, and only the title. It may be an exceptional case, but the article was stable at Deadmau5 for around 5 years, and I don't see any big complaints or discussions on the talk page until someone who'd never heard of him wandered by here and started a move discussion to move the title. If real-world-usage were closer, you might have a case. But it's absolutely not. The numbers are off the charts. in the interests of readers, we should title this article the name they're looking for, end of story.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Break 3

(response to Obiwankenobi) - Your second part of your argument is emotional; so I'll deal with it first. COMMONNAME does indeed state a preference; but TM goes strictly against it and mentions the pronunciation aspect. If leet, Tech nine and other stylized examples follow this convention; so should this article. Your entire emotional argument is weakened by pointing out that the title will be "Joel Zimmerman" and Deadmau5 will still redirect to the biography of the person. We use Zimmerman throughout the article; it seems like a cop out to have your "Common name" only exist as a title whereas other "common names" use it throughout their own articles. The title identifies the subject; so the subject should be referred to by the title and proper naming convention in the vast majority of cases. Now to tie in to the first argument; I'll stick to convention to respond to this. Like my previous assertion the common name addresses the subject for (major) animalia/flora articles, chemicals, diseases and objects. Guinea pig,caffeine, etc. take from the COMMONNAME list as you wish. For PEOPLE, we use their common name or legal name where identification leads to no ambiguity in the article title. Barrack Obama's last name is.. Obama. Referring to the subject by last name is proper. "Diana, Princess of Wales" cannot be attributed as just "Diana" as the disambiguation page points out for Diana. Diana also had no legal last name as a titled royal. Given that Diana was common, but unable to be used, the full title "Diana, Princess of Wales" is perfectly acceptable. So of your two examples for your argument; you are wrong on both. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Tell ya what; I'd be glad to switch to Deadmau5 for the title if this article can just be cleaned up and actually be a proper one. Already Zimmerman is the person of importance; the stage name is claim to fame and even if it goes all to hell; Yahoo! does this. Until an RFC and wider issue comes down from the greater community; I'm willing to let this be as it was. Because it won't kill anyone and we are wasting too much effort on arguing; get back to the content people. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
You don't ACTUALLY think that Lady Gaga's real name is Lady Gaga do you? PantherLeapord (talk) 05:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
By the way, I find it odd that Yahoo! has an exclamation point in it and no one seems to care about that. It is widely known by just Yahoo. I've never heard anyone in a casual context refer to it as "Yahoo!". MidnightRequestLine (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
It's official name and registered business is Yahoo! Inc., and the two challenges to it were in 2006 and 2008 its seems. A no move to Yahoo; which is just another way of saying no consensus. The actual level of MOS interaction and compliance on Wikipedia is relegated to few pages; and businesses are among the least cared about subject when its anything but removals for "advertising". Seems like Stone Cold Steve Austin is another case; dubious on this one, but it is move protected. It also seems out of touch with Dwayne Johnson; but there seems to be no existing view on this as a whole... since COMMONSENSE takes the article naming issue; I have to defer to exceptions in this case until the community takes a stance on the matter as a whole. So I think moving it to mau5 for now would be apt; as it is not invented and we got no existing policy for the cited issues at mos-tm. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Extremely strong move to deadmau5. That's how everyone refers to him. Practically noöne has ever written his name as "Deadmaus," and hardly anyone knows him by his actual name. WP:COMMONNAME.  — TORTOISEWRATH 19:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wrap this up?

Alright fellas, it's been a week. That's how long we have to wait right? Can an admin watching this page close the above RM? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There's quite a clear policy-supported consensus here so it should be easy to avoid a supervote. PantherLeapord (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I must also agree that it is time to bring an admin to this discussion. All the important points have been made it seems, and if these points aren't strong enough to finalise the move to the consensus-decided, policy-supported "Deadmau5" (not Joel Zimmerman, it seems), I doubt any points made from now will make much of a difference. Additionally, the commencer of the first move request is not putting forward any rebuttals to arguments against his original position of "Deadmaus", which now has almost no consensus support. While the final close was decided at "Deadmaus" previously, it is clear that a) consensus has changed, and b) new points have come to light. However, an admin is required to make that decision. Nb07wiki (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of requesting closure at ANI. PantherLeapord (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I just want to say one thing to the closing admin - the Wikipedian in you will probably be tempted to close this on account of it being too close in time from the original move. Please don't let this bureaucratic technicality get in the way of a common sense move to a name that is supported by both policy and near-unanimous consensus. There were several editors that, for one reason or another, did not participate in the original move (including myself). They deserve a voice. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://twitter.com/thekatvond/status/350014170860752897
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deadmau5/Archive_2&oldid=1144520507"