Talk:Maurice Vachon

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: No consensus to move. Clearly not a case of

• Comment that's an impossibility. There is no SNOW case here. You cannot as a nominator, in the nomination, claim SNOW. Without anyone registering opinions, it seems like gaming the system. You need opinions filed by many people to determine a SNOW. If there are only a few people, it's not a SNOW. Since there's no one when you filed the nomination, it's never SNOW. -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said that it should be SNOW, not that it would be. Feedback 16:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Next time you have an uncontroversial move, use the technical move request mechanism, and that will be the end of it. What you've started here is an unnecessary time sink. Dicklyon (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your reprimand is misplaced when the very first user who commented made a point that he opposes a move without discussion. Feedback 16:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he said that at all. He just said you can't call a SNOW close. Dicklyon (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon is correct, I did not register an opposition to the move request. I only think that using SNOW in the rationale is incorrect, highly inappropriate, and the nominator should keep that in mind in future move requests -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Key word: should. I was hoping for a unanimous vote, obviously, I wasn't stating that there already was one. Feedback 22:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The article says that's the common name, and this seems not to be disputed. Either name is 100% acceptable in terms of reader experience and WP:AT, with a redirect from the other. There seems a slight preference for the proposed move. So let us move on. Andrewa (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For whatever reason, the nominator and others assume this to be non-controversial. Within the context of his professional career, yes, his most successful years were as "Mad Dog". However, as was the case with the failed RM for Allen Coage, having been a competitor in the Olympics lends weight to the notion that he was known to many by his real name. He performed as a professional wrestler for many years under his real name. When he appeared at the PPV in Omaha to do the spot with Kevin Nash and Shawn Michaels, Vince McMahon repeatedly referred to him in his commentary as "Maurice Vachon", not "Mad Dog". As I commented in another current RM from the same nominator, this is an attempt to forcefully turn many shades of gray into black and white. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 10:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Both names are interchangeably used. Impossible to prefer one or the other. I'll propose an alternative name when this discussion is over. --George Ho (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2016 (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.

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: Not moved. See

• Oppose. This proposal violates multiple WP titling norms, and I'm hard-pressed to find a single other case where we are using both the given name and the stand-alone nickname of someone in the same title. Do a
  WP:COMMONNAME analysis to demonstrate that the nickname is the most common name, if you don't think Maurice Vachon is, and then do a proper RM, or just leave it alone per the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" principle.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There are Ed "Too Tall" Jones and Charles "Buddy" Rogers. For the record, SMcCandlish, I opposed changing to "Mad Dog Vachon". --George Ho (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I remember the Jones case now. It's because the RS really do usually call him literall "Ed 'Too Tall' Jones', with both the "Ed" and the nickname. Dunno about the Rogers case. Anyway, it's really rare here, so a really strong case would need to be made for it. "'Maurice' and 'Mad Dog' are separately used equally" is not the case we're looking for; rather, the case that they're almost never used separately. If the real name and the nick are used pretty much equally, we should use the real name, since it's more encyclopedic, and it's just what we do by default.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:23, 13 May 2016 (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.