This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 23:40, May 3, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Not moved. bd2412T 16:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per WP:CONCISE, an article title only needs to be long enough to identify its subject. Compare When the Pawn.... bd2412T 14:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When the Pawn... (shortened) is the COMMONNAME, but this isn't the same in our current case. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. No reliable sources for the new title are presented. (No wonder cause there are no sources that say that the suggested title can be used officially. It can't be.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Full title is used officially at Oricon [1] and Billboard Japan [2] chart. It also does not contain a subtitle, so there is no shortening of the title by the media sources. -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: "Suzukake Nanchara" is simply an abbreviation used once.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and per WP:COMMONNAME. Notwithstanding the opposition expressed above, I see in practice little reason for any rational person, fan or no fan, to use the full official name of 76 characters except in official contexts, like chart listings. I'd be tempted to say that fans are even less likely to use the long form. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of the proposals meet WP:COMMONNAME's requirements. The full title has 7.35M Google hits and seems to be used by reliable sources. "Suzukake Nanchara" is used only by fansites and the one NHK broadcast but does have 8.9M Google results. While the other abbreviation is only 1M Google results.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportWP:OFFICIALNAME we don't use official names just because they're official. WP:CONCISE, this is very long and the Japanese have a habit of abbreviating everything, even short things, with commonly used abbreviations for their subjects. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a song title. There are no such other titles nor is there any precedent (other than the Fiona Apple album which has a technical limitation) to do such an abbreviation.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Anime and Manga articles are replete with them, like Oreimo, WataMote, etc, which have very very long original titles; @Benlisquare those abbreviations originate from the Japanese, are otherwise meaningless, and widely used by Japanese people. And not just animanga, common everyday things also have them, like the konbini. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't make a title such as "Suzukake Nanchara" encyclopedic. We have our article about beer located at Beer, and not Yo homie let me holla at chu and get yo big dawg some drank. Whatever colloquialisms Japanese people use is only part of the equation. "Suzukake Nanchara" is a colloquialism, and is an inappropriate title on Wikipedia, because such use of language is not suitable for an encyclopedia article title, especially since the longer alternative is more well established as the name for the topic. --benlisquareT•C•E 00:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is encyclopedic because it is the proper name of the song when discussed online. You are suggesting that we change the title of this article to what is essentially translated as "Platanus Yada Yada Yada" simply because I copied text from the Japanese Wikipedia that says that this abbreviation exists in some form. It's not a printworthy title and this one is despite the fact it takes up 3 lines. The longer title meets WP:COMMONTITLE and WP:CONCISE does not meet coverage here. None of the reasons for moving are valid so this requested move should not be done.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood my point, which was in favour of the longer term, and not the colloquial shortening. Also, what's the point of putting an asterisk before the colons instead of after, since there's no difference between putting and not putting an asterisk down in such a case? The bullet point only appears if the asterisk comes after the colons. I've noticed you do this a year ago in a different discussion, but didn't bother asking why. --benlisquareT•C•E 09:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Putting the asterisk in front makes it so every comment that follows does not have a bullet point in front of it. Putting the asterisk last exists for the intent of making a bulleted list that is indented which has no purpose here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(@76.65.*.*) Another point regarding those anime examples you provided is that they were originally at different article titles, and were renamed to those after it was discovered that North American licensees chose those shortened names. Ore no Imōto ga Konna ni Kawaii Wake ga Nai (original article title at time of article creation) is called Oreimo in North America, because that's how Aniplex of America named the localisation. Have a look at the article talk pages for those two for more information. The relevant policy here is WP:USEENG (where an English title exists and it is a WP:COMMONNAME amongst English-language third party reliable sources, use the English title over foreign language titles). In other words, both the Oreimo and WataMote examples don't really reenforce your point. --benlisquareT•C•E 09:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:WP:AINTBROKE. There is no technical limitation for having a long title. The current title is the official title used by record company catalogues, online stores, review websites and newspaper articles, and any contraction would be improper and undue. "Suzukake Nanchara" is not the common name, and the proposer has not provided adequate evidence that such a move complies with WP:COMMONNAME.
Hi. I drafted and proposed the current language of WP:CONCISE. I intended it to deal with all subjects having overly long titles, for which a shorter title is available. The original example (which is still there), is Rhode Island, which originally had the long name of State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. bd2412T 19:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A shorter official title is not available for this one. "Suzukake Nanchara" is a official abbreviation intended as a stupid nickname to be used by fans in a conversation. To be clear, a Japanese editor translated "Suzukake Nanchara" as "Platanus blah blah blah", which I don't think is an appropriate title for a Wikipedia article. (Other possible translations wouild be something like "Platanus whatever" or "Platanus something", which doesn't look more decent.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even with that intended purpose of WP:CONCISE, do you really think a title which translates as "plane tree blah blah" is scholarly language that is suitable for an encyclopedia? Would it be suitable to rename "List of numbers in various languages" to "List of nu blah blah" if I believed that the title was too long? For what it's worth, neither the Chinese, Korean or Japanese Wikipedias abbreviate the title using "blah blah" or any of the other alternatives, precisely because they would probably think it would be stupid to have a title which had "blah blah" in it. --benlisquareT•C•E 01:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's only there because the text is cut off due to technical restrictions on Billboard's end.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is in plain text and runs for several hundred words. There is no technical restriction that I can see that would prevent Billboard from spelling out the formal full name of the song in the running text. bd2412T 19:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well for whatever reason they're cutting it off mid-word, and that U in there is an inability to parse the 「 character.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- there's no requirement that we use the WP:OFFICIALNAME, just a name that is natural, concise, recognizable, naturalprecise, and consistent. The current name of the article is unwieldy, not natural, and loquacious, not concise. Yes the extraordinarily long title is precise, but so is Suzukake Nanchara, given that "Due to the length of the title, consisting of 76 characters in Japanese and 210 when romanized, its name has been shortened to "Suzukake Nanchara" (鈴懸なんちゃら?, literally "Plane Tree Something Something") for the group's performance at the NHK Hall on their weekly show on NHK[2]". I fail to see what the problem is with the shorter title and the many complaints that 'no reliable sources for the proposed title are presented' leaves me wondering if editors actually read the article, which includes the sentence I just quoted. AgnosticAphidtalk 00:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed name is more unnatural, especially given the tone in Japanese. You might not realise this, but such a naming in Japanese is extremely unsuitable for what we're trying to achieve here, and there is a cultural and social reason behind it. The Japanese Wikipedia has the same set of article title guidelines at ja:Wikipedia:記事名の付け方, but why do you think they use the long name? Could it be that they understand the implications behind using a very silly name better than a lot of people on the English Wikipedia? When we refer to reliable sources, what is being addressed is whether or not the majority of reliable sources use the name (and they don't), since WP:COMMONNAME is one of the major points to address when determining an article title. We do not use blogs, tweets and message board posts as a gauge of which title to use, per WP:V - COMMONNAME requires that a title be justified using third-party reliable sources, and these third-party reliable sources use the longer title in the majority. By the same token, you wouldn't support a move based on teenage girls' Facebook profiles and MySpace posts, so why should we do the equivalent here? It doesn't matter if a shortened name is used by high school girls on Mixi or Livedoor, because we've never accepted those places as valid locations to gain information. --benlisquareT•C•E 02:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is "Suzukake Nanchara" is not supported by reliable sources and simply was a one-off use in informal speech. Reliable sources go with the full title more often.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Current title is FAR too long (and the Romanization, capitalization and division of words is inconsistent), and proposed title is used officially in numerous places on the group's official website.[3] (By the way, I'm the dynamic IP of an established user's smartphone, not a sock.) 182.249.240.14 (talk) 05:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC) (H88)[reply]
It does not currently exceed the length requirements. Romanization, capitalization, and division of the words meets with WP:MOS-JA's guidelines as far as I can tell. The proposed title is simply the "official abbreviation" and is not meant to always be used in place of the song's actual title.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It meets MOSJ's guidelines because MOSJ doesn't have guidelines on how to capitalize/divide up words and grammatical functions like "Bokutachi", "Bokunari", "Yo", "Shimau" and so on. It's extremely rare that we have to Romanize full sentences like this, so it's a bit out of MOSJ's (current) scope to dictate whether auxiliary verbs should be split from the verbs they modify, or whether adverbial particles (I actually don't even know how to categorize nari here...) should not be considered separate words from the nouns they follow. I don't want to try to solve these obscure, mostly meaningless issues now, but I also don't want inconsistencies floating around the project (and I definitely don't want this article's accidental title setting the standard for us). 182.249.240.6 (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well spacing can clearly be fixed but changing the whole page title to "Suzukake Nanchara" isn't going to be the solution to that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Under the current title we have about a half-dozen places where the spelling is controversial, but the proposed title would solve that problem automatically, in addition to not being so unwieldy and to still being "official". 182.249.240.18 (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Romanization errors are not a good enough reason for making this page's title "Suzukake Nanchara".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the problem would remain as even if the title of the article were changed, the romanization of the full title would still appear somewhere in the article's text. --Cckerberos (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The title is indeed long, but I don't really see the issue as it doesn't break anything. I also agree that "nanchara" isn't particularly suitable for use in an article title. --Cckerberos (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The nom's startement that the suggested title "was apparently used officially" is not reinforced by any links and, in fact, is completely untrue. It never was used officially and it can't be. Do you even know what "nanchara" means? The title is intended to be used only colloqually. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I assumed people would take a look at the article first. In the lead section it says it was shortened to that.[4] I think the example presented by bd (When the Pawn...) presents a perfect case.Raykyogrou0(Talk) 16:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The link says that the abbreviation is not to be used in writing, only orarly. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "「鈴懸なんちゃら」が公式の略称です。" translate to something like "Suzukake Nanchara" is the official abbreviation.? Regardless, per WP:CONCISE this title is still too long. Does anyone have a better suggestion? Raykyogrou0(Talk) 17:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're mistaken on what WP:CONCISE is supposed to mean. Right now, only one source is referring to this song as "Suzukake Nanchara". Most sources have been using the full 76 kanji/kana name, and of course there are no sources in English about this song yet so we can't go with whatever they might be calling it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lower it says that it's to be used only orally: "（「鈴懸なんちゃら」ですが厳密に言うと、文字に書く場合ではなく、口で言う場合、言葉を発する場合の略称だそうです）". And "Suzukake Nanchara" sounds stupid, it would look very strange and maybe even inappropriate on Wikipedia. It's like a nickname suggested for use by fans. Japanese fans invent short nicknames for everything. The title is not too long, there are no rules that would say to shorten it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is an attempt at an English (or romanized) title by Billboard on their English website for Japan Hot 100 but they just try to print the full title followed by ellipses [5] -AngusWOOF (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONCISE says to "balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic in a way the average person searching for it will recognize". I doubt anyone looking for the song would type in the whole title. A perfect example is When the Pawn.... "The title is not too long", really? I'm surprised the software even accepted it. How about "Suzukake no Ki no Michi de...Yaya Kihazukashii Ketsuron no Yō na Mono" then? Someone used this in the infobox chronology instead of the full title. Raykyogrou0(Talk) 02:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That someone was me and it was only because it's a really fucking long link that we don't need to repeat every single time on this or any other article. The title of this page should be as it is. Other names work as redirects.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I doubt anyone looking for the song would type in the whole title." - good thing it isn't 2005 anymore, and Wikipedia's search function has an autocomplete function. Even typing in the first few words in Google takes you to the correct Wikipedia page. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point that [[Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon]] is so long that only "Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakechymenokic" fits on the page. Clearly there's something wrong here. Raykyogrou0(Talk) 05:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could do with a word wrapping.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably your fault for not owning a 4K display panel, which would display the title perfectly fine. </joke> --benlisquareT•C•E 05:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed your source was a blog! You proposed to rename the article to a title siggested in a blog. :) (Yes, it's an official AKB48 blog, but it is still a blog and is written by AKB48 girls. What happened is that they invented the abbreviation themselves and suggested it to fans. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The blogger wrote: NHKホールでのＭＣで、センターの松井珠理奈さんが発表したように - (indented)「鈴懸なんちゃら」が公式の略称です。 So the blogger is citing the NHK broadcast. Whether the blogger is reliable or not depends on who posted it and whether they represent NHK staff or is just a forum user. The question then becomes what was said on the broadcast, and whether that is official or just one of the girls' opinion? -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's AKB48's blog for their NHK show, though.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes, you are right, Jurina Matsui announced it during the recording of Music Japan at NHK Hall. :) And yes, actually I don't know who the blogger is/are. I was inattentive. I just suddenly noticed the link wasn't the official site of some show as I thought yesterday and I didn't re-visit the page before posting. It says it was posted by someone called いしぴぃ, so it's probably someone from NHK. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But why do it? The article is okay where it is now. The title doesn't seem like a nuisance to me. A title truncated at completely random places seems like a nuisance, though. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The abbreviated title is only used where there is a technical restriction for displaying the whole title within Japan or if you're talking about it to a friend or on TV. There is no such restriction on the English Wikipedia, nor the Japanese Wikipedia where the full name is the article title.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In MLA when you cite an untitled poem, often the first line is taken as a title. If you treat the whole title as a poem, that's a good argument for Suzukake no Ki no Michi de, as that's where the title breaks on the cover (and that part is also bolded). --Prosperosity (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
タイトルが76文字にも及ぶ、『鈴懸の木の道で「君の微笑みを夢に見る」と言ってしまったら僕たちの関係はどう変わってしまうのか、僕なりに何日か考えた上でのやや気恥ずかしい結論のようなもの』 の略称は『鈴懸なんちゃら』 (abbreviation of 76-letter-long title "Suzukake no Ki no Michi de "Kimi no Hohoemi o Yume ni Miru" to Itte Shimattara Bokutachi no Kankei wa Dō Kawatte Shimau no ka, Bokunari ni Nan-nichi ka Kangaeta Ue de no Yaya Kihazukashii Ketsuron no Yō na Mono" is "Suzukake Nanchara")
Therefore, I think "Suzukake Nanchara" is considered as the official abbreviation, as their official comment clearly says so.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But do they actually use it anywhere? Do any reliable sources (newspapers, etc.) use it? --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So that's two uses in reliable sources out of dozens for the full title, and one of the Billboard pieces simply says that "Suzukake Nanchara" is the official abbreviation, which says nothing about whether it should be used as the title here. This discussion is going nowhere.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on who's calling it official and whether the context is just a media writing convenience like "Johnny Depp films for the next Pirates movie". If AKB48 is officially stating it as the shorthand (Jurina Matsui, AKB48 blog followup comment?) then I can see support for that, although it may still be a fan abbreviation. I encountered a situation where the author has acknowledged the fan abbreviation "RosaVamp" for "Rosario + Vampire" although the former is rarely used in any of the published media. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, as I said already, AKB48 Official YouTube Channel clearly states that the abbreviation is 鈴懸なんちゃら. Is it not considered as their official statement?---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, they titled the YouTube video "【MV】鈴懸の木の道で「君の微笑みを夢に見る」と言ってしまったら僕たちの関係はどう変わってしまうのか、僕なりに何日か考えた上でのやや気恥ずかしい結論のようなもの ダイジェスト映像-AKB48[公式]" and not "鈴懸なんちゃら", didn't they? I still think it's an inappropritate title for the Wikipedia article. (Even if the abbreviation can be used in written text as the Billboard Japan article you found shows.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How was the song announced on Japanese radio? Was the full title always, or ever, read? --BDD (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know if there's a top 40 station here. All we do have is the proclamation that "Suzukake Nanchara" is the official abbreviation.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how most of the discussion is going towards disapproving "Suzukake Nanchara" because nanchara apparently means blah blah but what about the other options then? A shortened title with ellipsis in the middle or like this: "Suzukake Ki no Miche de..." Raykyogrou0(Talk) 01:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to abbreviate the title at all though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason being that it's too long.Raykyogrou0(Talk) 06:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it fits as a valid title in Wikipedia's software then it's not "too long".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's the technical limit supposed to be nowadays anyway? 255 characters? --benlisquareT•C•E 10:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a matter of whether the title fits technically (Windows has title length limits too), but whether it fits aesthetically (i.e. being WP:CONCISE enough) Raykyogrou0(Talk) 10:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONCISE does not cover this, and people have been over this already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really, When the Pawn... being one of its two examples, also the shortened title of an obscenely long titled work of music. Raykyogrou0(Talk) 05:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The full title of When the Pawn... cannot be made into a Wikipedia article title, due to technical constraints. If you try to move the article to the long title, you will receive an error message. The AKB48 article that we're currently dealing with here on the other hand makes it within the technical limits. --benlisquareT•C•E 03:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONCISE doesn't say anything about abbreviating titles due to technical restrictions. Raykyogrou0(Talk) 10:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because there's no reason to use abbreviations as article titles unless there's a technical restriction or a common name exists. There is a common name for "When the Pawn Hits the Conflicts He Thinks like a King What He Knows Throws the Blows When He Goes to the Fight and He'll Win the Whole Thing 'fore He Enters the Ring There's No Body to Batter When Your Mind Is Your Might So When You Go Solo, You Hold Your Own Hand and Remember That Depth Is the Greatest of Heights and If You Know Where You Stand, Then You Know Where to Land and If You Fall It Won't Matter, Cuz You'll Know That You're Right" and that's why the article is called "When the Pawn...", but there is no such common name for this song. There's the full title and an official abbreviation that isn't printworthy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME says to "use commonly recognizable names". How is i.e. "Suzukake ki no Michi de...Ketsuron no Yo na Mono" any less recognizable than the full title? Raykyogrou0(Talk) 15:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because no one uses it outside of iTunes and when I cut down the content in the infoboxes and navboxes locally, which I should probably undo.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes that totally makes sense. People say "Suzukake no Ki no Michi de "Kimi no Hohoemi o Yume ni Miru" to Itte Shimattara Bokutachi no Kankei wa Dō Kawatte Shimau no ka, Bokunari ni Nan-nichi ka Kangaeta Ue de no Yaya Kihazukashii Ketsuron no Yō na Mono" in normal, everyday conversation. Raykyogrou0(Talk) 05:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When people are talking to each other they probably say "Suzukake Nanchara" or start saying the title then give up part way through because the only people who give a shit about the band are the diehard fans who will listen to whatever they say, and the fact that they once said "You can use 'Suzukake Nanchara' as an abbreviation" does not mean that it has become the common name nor is the other abbreviated form. The form used in reliable sources to refer to the song is the full title. Unlike When the Pawn..., there is no technical restriction to speak of whatsoever in having the full romanisized tile of this song on Wikipedia, which is why the article exists at the location it does. Suzukake no Ki no Michi de "Kimi no Hohoemi o Yume ni Miru" to Itte Shimattara Bokutachi no Kankei wa Dō Kawatte Shimau no ka, Bokunari ni Nan-nichi ka Kangaeta Ue de no Yaya Kihazukashii Ketsuron no Yō na Mono works in the software. [[When the Pawn Hits the Conflicts He Thinks like a King What He Knows Throws the Blows When He Goes to the Fight and He'll Win the Whole Thing 'fore He Enters the Ring There's No Body to Batter When Your Mind Is Your Might So When You Go Solo, You Hold Your Own Hand and Remember That Depth Is the Greatest of Heights and If You Know Where You Stand, Then You Know Where to Land and If You Fall It Won't Matter, Cuz You'll Know That You're Right]] does not. I am tired of arguing this point. There's nothing wrong with the present title of the page becasue it is the title that meets with all of the article titling policies and guidelines. WP:CONCISE does not cover this and neither "Suzukake Nanchara" (only referred to as the "official abbreviation"), "Suzukake no Ki no Michi de...Yaya Kihazukashii Ketsuron no Yō na Mono" (only used when a technical restriction exists on iTunes and other music retailers), nor "Suzukake No Ki No Michi De uKim..." (a technical restriction at the American Billboard website which also exists because they do not properly transpose the left corner bracket) meet WP:COMMONNAME because the only one found in reliable sources is the full title.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying that WP:CONCISE does not cover this but you haven't explained how. Raykyogrou0(Talk) 03:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Concise was meant to prevent article titles like "Commonwealth of Virginia", "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" in place of "Virginia" or "United Kingdom" because those are obviously concise names for those two subjects. There does not exist a concise name for this song. There is simply an "officially sanctioned" abbreviated title.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And how does "balancing brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic in a way the average person searching for it will recognize" not apply to this title? Like Berlinsquare said, typing in the first few words will take the reader to the right page. Raykyogrou0(Talk) 08:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the average person will be necessarily looking for AKB48's most recent single. In my opinion it is a pretty niche topic area in English speakers.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But given the fact that there are English-speaking people looking for this song (hence the existence of this article) wouldn't it fit better at a shortened title for conciseness? Raykyogrou0(Talk) 11:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article exists because there is a group of editors on this website who are fans of the band and make these articles. And they're all the people here who have been opposing the move because they don't feel that Wikipedia's titling policy says that the full title of the song when transliterated into English should not be allowed. And I find the timing of this discussion to be quite circumspect, because if I had not bothered to add the known abbreviations you would have never felt the need to start this discussion that's going nowhere fast.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would have started this discussion regardless because of the title's length. I had to use something as suggestion. Raykyogrou0(Talk) 01:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that. And someone needs to close this shit. It's gone on for way too long.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those in support of a move still haven't explained this yet: If having a long title is such a terrible thing, then why haven't other language Wikipedia projects done anything about it?
Surely if the problem of being too long is as obvious as people are claiming it to be, people elsewhere would be thinking the same thing as well? Yes, it's true that each Wikipedia project works completely individually and separately, however if the other Wikipedias are using the longer titles, that would probably be something to take into account. --benlisquareT•C•E 14:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is just me thinking out loud, but words written in chinese, japanese and korean use way less characters than when romanized. Raykyogrou0(Talk) 05:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's because in Chinese, Japanese and Korean, a character is a word. A character in Roman script is a letter, and be the equivalent to a brush stroke. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Short answer: No. Also closed because IP made a bunch of disruptive RFCs for no reason.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Should the name of the article to be shortened? 86.133.243.146 (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem: There was a lengthy discussion of that question a few months ago, as recorded above on this Talk page. My personal thoughts on the topic are already recorded there. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not even five months passed since the last discussion came to an end, maybe it's way too soon to start another. I would wait at least until early next year. Victão LopesFala! 01:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see the RM discussion immediately above. As for the question, the follow up is "how, exactly?", as without some indication what the proposal is it's impossible to weigh the tradeoff of length and precision. Of course a precise rename proposal is just a RM which happened only a short time ago.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if the song hasn't been abbreviated to "AKB48 no 'Suzukake no Ki' " in Japanese print books it's because the song is non-notable for print sources in Japan and hasn't been discussed. If it was discussed in English print books it'd be referred to as "Japanese girl group AKB48's song Suzukake no Ki.. (Plane Trees)" and we'd be thinking about Plane Trees (AKB48 song). But has it made print sources? Judging from the article, no. For English readers anyway the most useful thing would be the most recognizable thing about the product, the band name, (AKB48 song) but our mission is to make life as difficult for song article readers as possible, we are not here to help, but to obstruct where ever possible. This discussion here is really then a debate about in which way to obstruct and how much to obstruct. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of negativity here, although I also see no reason to shorten the title, especially since the abbreviations are redirects. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This page should not be speedily deleted because it is not a "meaningless drivel with no encyclopeadic value" as the nominator stated, but an encyclopedic article about a release notable per WP:NSONG. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator's complaint is as follows:
---- NOTE: misquotation removed by Roxy the dog. see datestamp below. ----
:-) Therefore the speedy deletion template should be removed ASAP. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed some misquoted nonsense above. my complaint, as stated in the nomination was "meaningless drivel with no encyclopeadic value." It is still "meaningless drivel with no encyclopeadic value" -Roxy, the dog.barcus 16:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1. Be polite. See Wikipedia:Civility. 2. Could you explain politely, please? What exactly did I wrongly attribute to you? --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Roxy, the dog.barcus 13:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Roxy the dog. I have no idea where you saw the so-called "meaningless drivel with no encyclopeadic value". The song is notable per WP:NSONG. Any questions? --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I think that meaningless drivel was just because I wanted to be polite. Is the title of the article written in English? We are after all the English language Wikipedia. -Roxy, the dog.barcus 15:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because... Yes, the song has an extremely long title, but it is a number-one hit on Oricon and meets NSONG. --AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You need to improve your comprehension of english and STOP MAKING STUFF UP AND ATTRIBUTING IT TO ME -Roxy, the dog.barcus 16:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See the section above. I didn't "make stop up and attribute it to you". --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where, in the section above that you have incompletely quoted from your talk page do I say that "the article should be deleted simply because the title is not in english"? Please answer. Is English your mother tongue, because you seem to be incompetent, though oddly capable at rude snark. WP:CIR applies to competence in language too. -Roxy, the dog.barcus 20:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)"[reply]
1. Please be polite. See Wikipedia:Civility. 2. Yes, that was how I interpreted your reply. I asked where you saw the "meaningless drivel", and the only meaningful complaint I heard was that the title was not in English. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. You asked "any questions" and I answered. Are you slightly dim? -Roxy, the dog.barcus 00:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you specifically about the edit summary for the edit in which the speedy deletion tag was placed. "Are you slightly dim?" — See Wikipedia:No personal attacks, I've asked you to be polite two times already. I will call for administrators' assistance. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The speedy deletion was declined by an admin as it was not a valid criteria for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion is only used for very clear cut and indisputable cases of pages needing deletion. As it says at Template:Db: Use this template to explain why the page meets the criteria for speedy deletion – you still need to say which criteria for speedy deletion it satisfies, and why.
As for the name there is no requirement for a name to be in English. Although this is an English encyclopaedia it has global scope, and includes many non-English topics. If they do not have a name they are commonly known by in English we use the foreign name, Romanised for accessibility. This is the case not only for relatively unknown songs like this but for well known ones like Non, je ne regrette rien or Ça plane pour moi. Or see Category:AKB48 songs for many more examples.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed 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: moved per consensus.The consensus says it should be moved per WP:COMMONNAME, but I am surprised why nobody invoked WP:COMMONSENSE. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to "Suzukake Nanchara", per discussion below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Strong oppose. 1. The proposed title literally means "Plane Trees blah blah blah" and is utterly unencyclopedic. Here's an article discussing this particular title, search for "Plane trees blah blah blah ……": [9] 2. As I have stated below, the source for the shortened title is a blog post by an AKB48 member who says they (the members, the girls) invented it as a colloquial abbreviation. 3. The same blog post says the abbreviation should be used only colloquially, never in print. 4. The Japanese media are very scrupulous about the correct way to write everything and you won't find the abbreviation used to refer to the song in reliable sources. 5. Spotify uses the long title: [10]. 6. There was a move discussion already and it resulted in "not moved". P. S. I'm afraid that some people who were interested in Japanese music and specifically AKB48 four years ago aren't on Wiki anymore, so this page is more vulnerable now. I can imagine how many people with no knowledge of Japanese will simply DONTLIKE the currect title. Please listen and please read the discussion above: #Requested move 02 January 2014. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support MoveTo either a shortened title with ellipsis or "Suzukake Nanchara". The only English language source I found (Gold Disc Awards 2014 Winners Announced) uses the 'short form'. Not much to base COMMONNAME on but it is also what English speakers are going to be searching on. Jbh Talk 05:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 21:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
American Billboard is a much more reliable source and it says "Suzukake No Ki No Michi De uKim…,": [11]. (Basically they just put an ellipsis in a random place.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The survey section is not the place for threaded discussion. That should take place in the section below. But, since you've posted here: to clarify: are you suggesting that the article be moved to "Suzukake No Ki No Michi De uKim…" as used by Billboard? I think that would be reasonable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) *::Still that supports truncation. The choice here is simply to truncate at a different arbitrary point. Jbh Talk 05:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Move This is nonsense. --Tarage (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Move current title is way too long. Lepricavark (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Move. Much too long of a title, and there's already a WP:COMMONNAME established in the article as it is (regardless of what it translates to, that is what the common name is). If someone is truly concerned about the full name being searchable, the redirect will take care of that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Move The title is too long. MT TrainTalk 06:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
oppose. The full name is the one used for the song; here it is in iTunes and Amazon. The proposed is only one of a few ways people have shortened it, not official or widely used. For those asserting it is too long: why is it too long? There is no technical or policy limit on page or article title length. It looks worse due to the policy that we always Romanise non-Latin names, as in Japanese it only needs 77 characters, while in English it needs over 200, but that is not grounds for moving it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 06:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Move per COMMONNAME and other reasonable reasons above to move this to a more manageable page title. Heiro 06:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Move to the shorter name prominently mentioned at the beginning of the article. When the Pawn... is a precedent for a concise article title about a song with a very long official title. No article should have a title so long that 99% of readers will not read it to the end. If you need a policy, try Ignore all rules, since this is a perfect situation to invoke that policy, because any reasonable uninvolved person will instantly see that this title is way too long. Cullen328Let's discuss it 07:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When the Pawn... is not a useful precedent, as that is required to be shorter due to WP:TITLELENGTH - titles cannot have more than 255 characters, and the full title of When the Pawn... has 444. It has never used its full name for the title as it’s not possible.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 08:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that's a silly argument. If the creator of the "When the Pawn..." article was only concerned about the 255-character limit, they could have taken the entire title of the song, backed it up to the end of the word that came closest to 252 characters and added an ellipsis. They did not do that, they instead chose a quite reasonable place to truncate the title which nonetheless represents it in a unique way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Move and hit anyone who had a problem with such an uncontroversial rename with a cold, wet trout. And no, they are not allowed to cut the trout into little pieces and eat it with rice wrapped in seaweed... --Guy Macon (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also support move to Suzukake no Ki no Michi de. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Move MMMMMMM sushi. Also support improving article to give it, you know, meaning! -Roxy, the dog.barcus 08:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Move since there already exists a common Japanese and English abbreviation, should probably use that. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support move I'm genuinely shocked this failed four years ago. I don't agree with "common name" arguments for Japanese topics that are not "commonly known" among our readership (the actual guideline at WP:COMMONNAME makes it clear that it is talking about Richard Starkey and similar cases); but this article's title is ridiculous, and I can't imagine anyone (in Japan or elsewhere) actually referring to the song by this title in speech, except as a joke. The orthography and punctuation of some parts of the current title also seem incredibly arbitrary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—you folk sure know how to poop a party. WP:COMMONNAMEdoes not apply for "Suzukake Nanchara"—COMMONNAME applies only in cases where one title is used overwhelmingly at the expense of another, not when an alternative is "common" in the sense of "often used". aAternative versions of the title are appropriate for redirects and links, but the long version is the official name—"Suzukake Nanchara" is not. Even when I search specifically for the shortened "鈴懸なんちゃら", half the hits I get are for the full title. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 10:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey: You know I agree with you that COMMONNAME doesn't apply here, but we can't pretend WP:CONCISE doesn't apply. The current title is way too long, to the point of being unwieldy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there were an accepted short version, I'd agree. "Unwieldy" for what purposes? In running text, we have Suzukake Nanchara as a redirect (and could create an arbitrary number of others), so the length of the title doesn't cause any issues in practice. This is a solution looking for a problem. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 08:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey: Believe me, I hear you, and as someone who knows that the word does mean "blah blah blah" ("something" is not the same low register as the Japanese; "blah blah blah" is a better translation) the proposed title feels less than ideal, but having the title of this page take up as much space as we used to be allowed include in an edit summary is less than less than ideal (it takes up four full lines on my iPad's screen). I am working under the assumption that our article is accurate in attributing the "Nanchara" abbreviation to the performers themselves (making it "somewhat" official), but this is somewhat senmongai for me, so I recognize the possibility that I'm completely wrong. What do you think of "Suzukake no Ki no Michi de" or the other proposed abbreviations, anyway? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move - it's an odd looking title but not "bizarre" or "irrational" as I have seen described. I don't see the need for the move. There is no COMMONNAME alternative - several have been suggested above but none are overwhelmingly used. There is a 255 character limit on article titles which this falls well below so there is no technical need for the move.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Suzukake no Ki no Michi de per AngusWoof's English sources, should use the form other English-language purveyors like Billboard use. Prefer current super-long title over "Nanchara" though. SnowFire (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the current title is the most correct. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So? Sir Richard Starkey is also the most correct name, but that's not what his Wikipedia article is titled. On Wikipedia, we pick titles according to our policy at WP:COMMONAME. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is the common name. It's also the only correct name out of the three options provided. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support move Per WP:COMMONNAME guidelines of Wikipedia, which specifically state this kind of thing is to be avoided.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." --Guy Macon (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no common name in this case. All we could find was one occurrence of "Suzukake Nanchara" (on a Philippine newspaper website) and one occurence of "Suzukake No Ki No Michi De uKim…" (on the Billboard website). --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I see what you are saying. Sorry for misunderstanding. In that case, the gudance would be "When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly", which is what this RfC is. Thus it is incorrect to claim that COMMONNAME tells us what consensus we should reach here; it clearly does not. Thanks for clarifying this. --Guy Macon (talk)
Guy Macon: Moscow Connection got to you first, but he's answering your comment rather than ZXCVBNM's. Does ZXCVBNM have the same misunderstanding as Guy Macon? If they do, the oppose should be struck (or discarded). Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 06:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to "Suzukake Nanchara". Who wants to be the first one to create [[Regretting What I Said to You When You Called Me 11:00 On a Friday Morning to Tell Me that at 1:00 Friday Afternoon You're Gonna Leave Your Office, Go Downstairs, Hail a Cab to Go Out to the Airport to Catch a Plane to Go Skiing in the Alps for Two Weeks, Not that I Wanted to Go With You, I Wasn't Able to Leave Town, I'm Not a Very Good Skier, I Couldn't Expect You to Pay My Way, But After Going Out With You for Three Years I DON'T Like Surprises!! Subtitled: A Musical Apology]]? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support; the proposed new title gets about 20 times more hits on Google (in English, of course) than the full title, and 5 times more than "Suzukake no Ki no Michi de". It has been used as an official name often enough that it is the preferred general use. WP:CONCISE is a rule that the English-speaking world tends to follow by default, anyway.--Aervanath (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Curley Turkey, when I did the same Google news search for the full title I got zero hits, so I still prefer the more concise version.--Aervanath (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aervanath: "preferences" don't count when moving from an official title to one that RSes don't use—WP:CONSENSUS is not a raise of hands, and we're not talking about a tie-breaker between two equally valid titles. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 22:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wikipedia must take the long view on matters such as these. In the long view, cultural artefacts like this should be preserved under the clearest, intended name that the artist assigned to the work. If this were on exhibition in a museum, as a place similarly dedicated to the documentation of cultural knowledge, there would be no question but to title the article as it was intended by the artist. I do not think titling it in some other manner would be consistent with maintaining a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is a policy level mandate, as opposed to the COMMONNAME guideline—which may not even strongly weigh in favor of the move, as others have noticed. In fact, the proposed title change is particularly problematic, especially with regard to black-letter NPOV policy. In the Japanese vernacular, it implicitly denigrates the subject (as noted by other editors with knowledge of Japanese). That proposed target is therefore out of the question. Other, possibly more acceptable, re-titlings fail this test to a lesser degree: the title of this particular subject is quite obviously a significant aspect of the subject and shouldn't be implicitly minimized by shortening it for comparatively weak reasons. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have stayed out of this in general, but I totally disagree that the shortened form "denigrates the subject." The Japanese Wikipedia notes that it's the official shortened name for the song (「公式略称は鈴懸なんちゃら」) and though some people have linked to language-teaching blogs (which aren't really reliable) that don't seem to like the word "nanchara," it really doesn't have the negative connotation its been given here. So says this Japanese speaker, just so the other appeals to authority aren't left unchallenged. Dekimasuよ! 03:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced to an NHK promo that quotes Matsui Jurina as saying so. Great—it should be noted. We still lack evidence that it's widely used in WP:RSes—the evidence tells us it's not. So we're back where we started: he long version remains both the official and WP:COMMONNAME, and we have no technical reasons to move. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 06:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't !voted. But I do now notice that the "blah blah blah" cite in the article links to a website that translates the title as "If I say 'You smile me in my dream' and wonder how does it work between us. That what I thought on the street of plane trees, and suchlike my conclusion that has reached a few days later with a bit embarrassed." Something tells me they're not in a position to catch the subtle nuances and suchlike of "blah blah blah" in English. Dekimasuよ! 07:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ! Not that we should be relying on a foreign-language source for English translations in the first place. I feel like "something-or-other" works better than "blah blah blah" or "something", but I don't see a source with that, though dictionaries back it up. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 10:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Something-or-other" sounds better to me as well, but I think "Something" matched an older version, so I was mostly reverting. Dekimasuよ! 21:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bickering over the nuances of meaning in the proposed title misses the substance of my vote. Wikipedia should remain neutral, and the clearest way to remain neutral here is to keep the title of the work, as given by the artist, just like it would be in a museum or library. A proposed title not given by the artist, which may or may not denigrate the subject depending on who you ask, is not consistent with presenting the subject in a neutral light. Absent some clear policy rationale for moving to a different title (i.e., not just COMMONNAME), the article should remain where it is. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey and I were pointing out that the shortened title is indeed an "official name" of the work given by the artist. I didn't miss the substance of the !vote. Rather, I pointed out that it accepted some linguistic conclusions from other editors/unreliable sources, and I attempted to stave off others doing the same. Dekimasuよ! 21:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we've found one member of the group endorsing it, and not really any other evidence that AKB48 does so officially—and that most sources still use the full title. I've shown elsewhere that even searching for 鈴懸なんちゃら returns mostly hits for the full title. Is it really "official"? Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 22:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More on the level of "helpful article content" than "reason to change the title," I would think. Dekimasuよ! 06:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I never used the word "official" in my argument, it is clear that the proposed shortening is not the "official name" of the track. One need only look this up on Amazon or iTunes to verify that. So I have no idea what point you're trying to make. If you wish to continue this red herring, please answer the following questions: why is it more consistent with the neutral point of view policy to move the article to a shortened title? And what is a more neutral title than the current one? Otherwise we're done here, and you can comment in the section below if you wish to continue a general discussion about the subject. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to get the page moved, so there's no reason for me to try to prove it is more consistent with NPOV than the current title. They are equally consistent with NPOV in that regard. But you asked, so perhaps I should point out that WP:CONCISE is also policy. What my comment did was indicate that there isn't the NPOV problem you indicated when you wrote In the Japanese vernacular, it implicitly denigrates the subject (as noted by other editors with knowledge of Japanese). That proposed target is therefore out of the question. It does not. And as far as the "name the artist assigned to the work," which was the phrase you used, I presented evidence that the proposed title was also a "name the artist assigned to the work." Mostly I'm a bit befuddled that you took my original comment as bickering. It is common to reply directly to comments in a move request. This isn't an RfA where it indicates you think they've said something preposterous. Dekimasuよ! 06:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English Wikipedia not the Japanese Wikipedia, and this title is so long that it is completely bizarre. I support shortening the article title radically. Cullen328Let's discuss it 02:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the article itself says that the unwieldy size of the article (which is apparently 76 characters in Japanese) has caused it to be generally referred to as "Suzukake Nanchara", I see absolutely no reason to keep the full title as the article name, per WP:COMMONNAME. I also support a move to the shorter title.(Full disclosure: I moved the article to the shorter title without being aware that there had been an RM discussion. After the move, I read the RM, but did not believe that the close accurately characterized the consensus of the discussion [sorry, bd2412, but that's how I read it], and therefore chose to invoke WP:IAR and keep the move; another editor moved it back.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not generally referred as "Suzukake Nanchara" (which means "Suzukake bla bla bla"). The source for the abbreviation is a blog by an AKB48 member who says they (the members) invented this abbreviation. And the blog post says the shortened title shouldn't be used in print, only colloquially. (As I understand the song was referred to like in a TV show, but that's all.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that "Suzukake Nanchara" literally means "Plane Tree Something", not "Plane Tree bla bla bla". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright, it's colloquialness does not disqualify it from being used as a title, especially since it's "very colloquial" in Japanese, but here, on English Wikipedia, it's just a title, with no inherent English meaning. If English-language sources were provided to show that the song was most commonly referred to, in English, as "AKB48's long-title song", that would be an acceptable name for the article, if consensus agreed, since it would be the WP:COMMONNAME. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some more: [19], [20]. And here's a discussion about this particular song: [21]. Search for "Plane trees blah blah blah". --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also note that the RM discussion was in June January 2014. Plenty of time has passed for there to be a new discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the ridiculous things I have at times seen on Wikipedia, this paragraph length article title takes the cake by far. It should be moved to the proposed shortened title. Heiro 03:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone think it should be moved then start another requested move discussion. Plenty of time has passed since the last discussion and seems there is enough disagreement over it that it’s ripe for another discussion.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 04:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since this discussion is, in essence, an RM discussion, I have converted it into a formal one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the title should be discussed by people who know a little bit of Japanese. If the title is decided by people who came here now from ANI, it won't be correct. Cause you just want to see a shorter title, that's all. Everyone will just be like: "Let's move it, I hate it, it's too long." You don't understand how bad the proposed title will look and how unencyclopedic it will be. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledge of Japanese is not a requirement to express an opinion on the length of a title. Any Wikipedia editor can do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I would move it to Taumata, the name the article itself says (sourced) is used for brevity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, "this title is so long that it is completely bizarre" and "Of all the ridiculous things I have at times seen on Wikipedia, this paragraph length article title takes the cake by far" are not comments about "correctness/incorrectness", they are explicitly about the length of the title. If you have a better choice for a title of reasonable length, then you should suggest it, because this discussion is about shortening the title. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Moscow Connection, you have already shown considerable WP:OWNership behavior regarding this article. This is an advance warning that any attempt by you to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion will be brought to the noticeboards immediately. Please allow other editors to express their opinions without answering every comment, and do not repeat the points you have already made previously in the discussion. (Obviously, repeating points you made in the previous RM is not a problem.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please be polite. I've tried to explain the matter to you at ANI and in my edit summaries, but you came here and acted like I didn't tell you anything. And sure, I have to repeat the same points I have already made at ANI cause you moved here and didn't mention anything I said before. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I came here as if I did not accept your arguments, which I do not. Your stating something does not necessarily make it convincing or true, nor should it cut off argumentation against it. Your stated position is clearly understood, but -- as you do not WP:OWN the article -- it is not the final word on what should be done, which will be determined by WP:CONSENSUS.Of course, repeating points you made at AN/I is legitimate, since this is a different discussion, I am simply warning you that you are showing signs of responding to every comment made which opposes you, which is considered to be WP:BLUDGEONing behavior, as it inhibits other editors from participating. The other thing that BLUDGEONing editors do is to repeat the same points over and over again, ad infinitum, and my warning was to alert you that doing so within this discussion is not acceptable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't even repeated all my points from ANI and my edit summaries yet. And you made me repeat them cause you moved here (from ANI) and you posted as if nothing had been said to you. (And again, I'm just replying to you.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please look again. This discussion was started by Cullen, not by me. Would you mind sticking to the subject at hand? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In his "Survey" comment above. Moscow Connection mentions that Spotify uses the full title. I noted on the AN/I disucssion that I am dubious that Spotify is a reliable source, as they are not known to have a reputation for fact checking and error-correction. Also, I don't understand how the reported meticulousness of the Japanese media has anything to do with this question. As pointed out above, we are not Japanese Wikipedia, and what the Japanese media does has no bearing on what we do. Moscow Connection also reports that the shortened title was invented by the band itself, but despite this, in editing the article, refuses to accept it as "official", adding "unofficial" to describe the shortened name. To me, when a band says that this title is an appropriate one to use if you don't want to use the long one, that's pretty darn "official" to me.In the discussion above MC offers the comment that only editors with some knowledge of Japanese should be commenting on the article's title, and also says that "I'm afraid that some people who were interested in Japanese music and specifically AKB48 four years ago aren't on Wiki anymore, so this page is more vulnerable now," but this is entirely the wrong way to look at things. The title of the article is not about knowing Japanese or being a fan of the band, it's about what's right for Wikipedia, and changing the title does not change the content of the article. The full name of the song would still lead off the first sentence in bold type, just as it does now. The difference is that the article title is the interface between our readers and the article's subject matter, so the decision is an internal one, which means that anyone on Wikipedia should be able to participate, even if their opinion is based on nothing more then "the current title is too long".Look, I understand the appeal of long titles. I love showing off that I know the full titles of "I'm a Cranky Old Yank in a Clanky Old Tank in the Streets of Yokohama with my Honolulu Mama Singing These Beat-o Beat-o Flat on My Feet-O Blues" and "The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat As Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton Under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade", but I wouldn't support those as article titles either. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A good model for a solution is our article When the Pawn... about the 1999 Fiona Apple song whose full title is "When the Pawn Hits the Conflicts He Thinks like a King What He Knows Throws the Blows When He Goes to the Fight and He'll Win the Whole Thing 'fore He Enters the Ring There's No Body to Batter When Your Mind Is Your Might so When You Go Solo, You Hold Your Own Hand and Remember That Depth Is the Greatest of Heights and If You Know Where You Stand, Then You Know Where to Land and If You Fall It Won't Matter, Cuz You'll Know That You're Right". Because the editors who selected a title for that article were sane and rational, the article title is also sane and rational. This title is bizarre and irrational. Cullen328Let's discuss it 06:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great title, though - for the song I mean. You're right that using it for the title of the article would be inappropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have expressed my opinion, Pawnkingthree, and it seems that several other editors agree with me. There is no objective standard, but this is a case that calls for editorial judgment informed by experience. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. Cullen328Let's discuss it 19:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CONSENSUS, you need more than an "opinion", Cullen328—the policy makes it clear that consensus is not a show of hands, and there are plenty of examples where RfCs were closed with the minority opinion (per policy), as Wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. You need something more concrete than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or the closer can and should disregard your "opinion". Right now we have a few facts: the long title is official; there are no official alternatives; there is no COMMONNAME other than the official title; and there are no technical reasons to move (it's within the character limit, and we have shortened redirects available for use in running text). These are facts, not opinions. Can you counter with facts? Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 21:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since you want facts, here are a few facts, Curly Turkey: WP:TITLE is a policy. That policy places a high priority on conciseness. As an example, the policy says "For instance, the recognizable, natural, and concise title United Kingdom is preferred over the more precise title United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." That policy also says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title". I did not just rely on my opinion, but also called for "editorial judgment informed by experience", and that includes both knowledge of policy and common sense. In my opinion and editorial judgment informed by knowledge of the applicable policy, the current title defies common sense, but we will see what the consensus is, as determined by the closing administrator. Cullen328Let's discuss it 03:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"United Kingdom" is the COMMONNAME of the subject—not only "more concise", but the one sources overwhelmingly prefer. None of the proposed alternate titles here are particularly common, and several of them are strictly arbitrary. None of them are "recognizable [or] natural" (per the policy). That leaves us with the full actual title.
"the current title defies common sense" is vague and arbitrary to the point of meaninglessness. When there are no widely-accepted alternatives (as we've established there aren't), common sense is to use the actual title of the subject.
We have shortened alternatives to link to in article text, so this whole move sounds like it's goal is to satisfy someone's personal dislike for long titles, rather than to solve any concrete problem. At least, I don't see anyone in the discussion demonstrating how the move will solve any unaddressed problem. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 03:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Possible technical issue It seems that it is not possible to pull up a diff link from the page. The history DIFF links truncate at Talk:Suzukake no Ki no Michi de and Suzukake no Ki no Michi de. The Inspect Diff button works, but that is from a script. Jbh Talk 19:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Moscow Connection: That seems to be what it is. Trying to open a diff from "Heroes" dumps me on the Main Page using both Win10 Chrome and iOS Chrome. Thank you. Jbh Talk 13:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's the reason, then. It dumps you on the Main Page because the hyperlink is cut off at the first quotation mark. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
$66 million dollars spent last year,[22] and yet the WMF can't find the money to fix obvious bugs like this. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have that problem, nor did I have it at school, on any browser. Radically different operating systems, and both worked. Maybe a selective bug? -A lad insane(Channel 2) 03:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Test diff:[23] please indicate whether clicking on the link brings you to the diff of an IPV6 user changing a word from italic to bold. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon: Yes, that's what I see. Haven't checked it at school, but will be able to at about 1900 UTC if you want me to. -A lad insane(Channel 2) 16:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I get as well. However that is not the issue. The problem is when, in the page history, one clicks on (DIFF). The link displayed in the mouseover text is correct but when the link is clicked it is truncated. This happens with Win10 Chrome and iOS Chrome. The truncation also occurs when using Right-Mouse-Click Copy link. It looks to be a browser compatibility issue not a MediWiki issue. Jbh Talk 17:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Windows 7 Chrome (school computer) works fine. I tried what you said, I don't have any issues. -A lad insane(Channel 2) 21:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even Billboard got tired of typing in the full title when referring to it in the regular news. [24]AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's in running text—that would be the equivalent of link to a shortened redirect in article text, which is trivial—Suzukake Nanchara is already a convenient redirect. The issue is the titling of the article itself—assuming it's actually an "issue" and not just a bug up people's asses. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 10:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote The proposed is only one of a few ways people have shortened it and other editors have confirmed this, finding Suzukake no Ki no Michi de and Suzukake No Ki No Michi De uKim… The article itself has Suzukake no Ki no Michi de ... Yaya Kihazukashii Ketsuron no Yō na Mono. Clearly there is no standard or official short form of the name, and we should not be picking one without good reason. It’s worth noting why these arise: the name might be shortened to fit in a table, in a headline, in a piece of software. But the only guideline and constraint we have is that names must be 255 characters or less, and the current name falls well within that limit.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What do people in Japan and elsewhere when they have to handwrite or typewrite this name? It is easy for us on computers where we only have to drag the mouse across the name on the screen and then press ctrl-C . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A lad insane: They sure can—I live in Japan, and all my devices (including mobile) default to Japanese. Copy-paste works exactly the same in Japanese as in English. Why would you think they wouldn't? Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 23:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A lad insane: So was I, and yes it does. You've never used copy-paste on mobile? Long press somewhere in the text you want ot copy, then you'll get markers to move to the limits of what you want to copy. Works the same on both Android and iOS. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 23:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although I disagree with Curly Turkey on the page move, the editor is completely correct regarding mobile copy/pasting. I do at least 95% of my editing on an Android smartphone, and I copy/paste constantly. Cullen328Let's discuss it 07:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But sometimes people, in Japan and elsewhere, may have to write the name out with a pen or a pencil or a typewriter, like it was before computers started. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing using whatever people handwrite it as for the title? Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 08:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant how easy or hard it might be to write, as anyone writing down the name can choose to write it however they want, in whichever language they prefer, e.g. as given in the first paragraph of the lead. I don’t know if it will ever come up: people write almost everything on computing devices today. Certainly if you are sharing a URL, or a recommendation for an artist or song: you do it on a phone/PC/tablet so the person receiving it can access the link, or search for the artist/song.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 08:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Writing the name down can be accommodated by adding search redirects such as Suzukake (AKB48 song) or Suzukake akb48. Those will still be around for searches and such, but it is not relevant to how the article title should be named. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Closed as per "per WP:COMMONNAME"? Whatever the outcome of this discussion, it has become amply clear that "Suzukake Nanchara" fails the WP:COMMONNAME test by a ridiculously wide margin, as even many supporters of a move acknowledge. I've notified the closer—if the close and move aren't reverted, I'll be filing a WP:Move review. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 04:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is that it? no more dramah about the name? Can I restart the deletion discussion now that that is over? -Roxy, the dog.barcus 18:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds do you want this article deleted? It is a #1 single that sold over a million copies.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ther was no deletion discussion, just an entirely inappropriate speedly deletion tag with no valid reason for deletion given. You could start a deletion discussion but first you need to think of a good reason for it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move Request reboot: What should the title be?[edit]
Per the close at Wikipedia:Move review, a new Move Request is to be initiated to determine consensus on what title is most appropriate, as the previous Move Request came to no consensus on one. Possibilities include:
The full title
"Suzukake Nanchara"
"Suzukake No Ki No Michi De", or some other arbitrary shortening
Shorten to title with elliipses: Suzukake No Ki No Michi De... As I stated in previous RM discussion, this is first vertical line of the title and is a natural cutoff of the full title as with We the People. It is used without ellipses in Amazon [25] and attempted to be shortened in Billboard ""Suzukake No Ki No Michi De uKim…,"" [26] Keeping the ellipses on the title will ensure that people know it's supposed to be a super-long full title, and would make it consistent with When the Pawn... (note how it phrases handling the long title with "The correct title is: " and "When the Pawn..." is the shortened title of (long title) ) "Nanchara" is but a cutesy nickname mentioned by a single member on a show and isn't representative of how the group wants their song to be titled or referred to. Even bloggers, vendors and regular AKB48 fansites like Stage48 get tired of pasting in the full title [27] preferring "Nanchara" [28] or "Kimi no Hohoemi wo Yume ni Miru"[29] although the last suggestion is only using the quoted phrase of the title and is not used as any sort of common name. The first part of the title with ellipses would be the best compromise. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Full title. There's mo other WP:COMMONNAME the article can be moved to. Amazon is not a reliable source and "Suzukake No Ki No Michi De" doesn't comply with MOS:JAPAN. Billboard has mentioned the song only once, shortening its name to "Suzukake No Ki No Michi De uKim..." which seems to be a completely random truncation. Neither is a common name, or even something we can use on Wikipedia. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ellipsis seems like a reasonable compromise. The current title clearly is not. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suzukake Nanchara...Suzukake... (no quotation marks) should be the title of this article if only two words a shortened title is wanted by consensus. A two word title appears to have been acceptable to editors instead of the full title, even though there is no 256-byte length restriction. Since the long, full name has been deemed unsuitable, a three-character ellipsis (...), not a one-character ellipsis (…), really must be used to follow any shortened version of the full title. Paine Ellsworthput'r there 02:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But "Nanchara" is not part of the title of the work, so your proposed title makes no sense. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After a closer read, I'm not really sure about the "Nanchara" part myself, so my suggestion has been altered to the shortened Suzukake... title. Paine Ellsworthput'r there 01:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There were plenty of problems with the previous Move Request—plenty of drive-by !votes by editors who saw a dispute at ANI and who didn't examine the evidence; no WP:COMMONNAME other than the full title emerged; and the full title is within the technical restraints of Wikipedia titling, with a plethora of shortenings available as redirects. Those in favour of moving provided weak to nonexistent evidence, often !voting strictly on the grounds of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The Wikipedia community shold not allow such an arbitrary precedent to be set. At the very least, the early !voters should examine the evidence presented after they !voted, and should be able to answer this: "The title is not broken, so why are we trying to 'fix' it?" Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 04:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This title is terrible; the move was terrible; the move review close was terrible. Everything is awful. The other short title is bad too but at least it isn't an absolute joke like this one. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey, you initiated the move review so are surely aware of its outcome. In particular
There is clear consensus over here that those who participated in the original RM wished to shorten the title and hence the move from the-then name was good-enough
Therefore it is not appropriate to seek to dispute the move outcome yet again, by proposing to move it back to its full name. That is not going to happen. Nor is it good to waste our time with another lengthy discussion on all the options, as the outcome is likely to be the same. The only question which should be asked is which short name?, i.e. a choice between your 2 and 3, which can be done in a simple RM.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
JohnBlackburne: If there's a consensus for a particular shortened name, then my !vote and opinion won't make a difference; as of now, there isn't. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 23:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read what I quoted above: there is clear consensus for a shorter name, and so that matter should be considered closed. You should not be trying to re-open the matter yet again, after you tried and failed to get it overturned in the move review. It’s not that your opinion makes no difference. But when it was discussed the weight of opinion came down on shortening the name.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "try and fail to get it overturned". The consensus is that it was a bad close, that there was no consensus for the move to "Suzukake Nanchara", and that a discussion is needed to determine consensus on a title. You disagree with my opinion? Offer a counter-opinion, then, rather than this meta-discussion. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 00:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus for a shorter was reached, it was moved. Why OH why are you insisting on doing this again? Heiro 01:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Move Review closed with a call that a new discussion be "immediately initiated to discuss other alternative-titles, since there is considerable doubt that the current title is the best target". There was no consensus for "Suzukake Nanchara", and considerable opposition to it even amongst those who supported a move. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 02:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with Suzukake Nanchara... There is no source that ellipses follow that shortening of the title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's problematic, and it implies the title continues after "Nanchara", which obviously it doesn't. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 03:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any move back to the long title, quite firmly. The solid consensus of the previous discussion is that the long title is not acceptable for an article in this encyclopedia. Cullen328Let's discuss it 03:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems nobody wants to clean up this mess, but I want to remind JohnBlackburne and everybody else that there was a clear consensus against "Suzukake Nanchara". Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 10:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the closed discussion above and the outcome was move to Suzukake Nanchara. The discussion since then hasn’t come to a consensus about any other name, and petered out months ago as presumably people lost interest in a change. I have no attachment to the current name, but absent consensus for another name it should not be moved, certainly not without explanation (pinging Reese littlemiss06 who moved it, in case they want to give an explanation or otherwise participate in this discussion). Probably time for a properly formulated move proposal if the current name is still problematic.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found the move review in case that is useful: Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 March. Note the suggestion that "a new RM may be immediately initiated". Instead though we had a more open ended discussion which petered out without any consensus being reached. So yes, definitely time for a clear move proposal to a better title, whether the recently chosen one Kimi no Hohoemi wo Yume ni Miru or another.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
