Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)/Title RfC

message: Comment: As an outsider, I see two points that have yet to be made. Firstly, what was the in-production title and the production company name (most films seem to have a spun-off company to manage the project itself)? I would strongly recommend going with the internal name of the film during production as the title (where said title makes sense to be used, of course), as that would be the one used for the longest and known to the cast and the crew. Secondly, the Philosopher's Stone appears to be the proper name for the titular object, and it seems to have never had an established alternative name. LinaMishima (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC on title - another arbitrary break

message: The article title issue is currently being addressed at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film). Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have thought it would have made sense to wait until the RfC has been closed first. - fchd (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does make sense to wait - especially since this is in no way a deadlock; overwhelming consensus seems to be in favour of retaining the current title. --Ckatzchatspy 18:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you include me? As I said above, I really couldn't care less what this page is called anymore, I'm neutral. RFMs are only for people who have strong opinions either way, which I no longer have. Gran2 18:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is known as canvassing, taking an argument all over wikipedia to try and win support. Its not working. You didn't get any support on WP:ANI, only one person agrees with you here, and nobody is responding to your request for mediation. Consensus is massively against you, every argument you have given has been discredited and policy is against you. The article stays named what it is. Deal. With. It. And, leave the dead horse alone.--Jac16888 (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Before I agree to mediate, I just want to make sure that when you say "mediate", you just mean to discuss it, and that by agreeing to mediate, I'm not necessarily agreeing to move the article. Anakinjmt (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mediation ought not to be necessary at this point.  Trout-slapping may be. Neıl ☎ 15:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed as to Anakinjmt's statement. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A swathe of people sniping at each other has been removed.  No more, please. Carry on and I'll start blocking both sides for wilful baiting.  If you cannot be constructive, then don't say anything. Neıl ☎ 15:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  I'm unclear (as an uninvovled party) why ,mediation is required? the conensus on this matter seems pretty clear? --Fredrick day (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: No, there is clear consensus here, that is why the RFC was closed as keep as is.  That's why the requested move was closed in July to keep it as is.  People have seen the evidence and disputed it.  They took it under consideration and decided it was not clear evidence to support a move.  Metros (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  indeed, which is why at least 4 uninvolved editors (me being one of them) have suggested the RFM should be pulled as a timewaster. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There is nothing to mediate here.  Consensus is very clear, as it was in numerous previous discussions.  Also, you have removed a party from the RfM.  The fact that this editor refused to take part in the mediation does not mean you can remove them, and this RfM will therefore fail. BLACKKITE 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see why I was included anyway, but I've formally declined the mediation. Gran2 22:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of Mediation