Should the paperclip office assistant character be referred to as 'Clippit' or 'Clippy'? Averixus ( talk) 08:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Clippy. It is by far the most commonly-used name today, and is used by the vast majority of sources cited in the article. There's ambiguity about whether WP:COMMONNAMES and MOS:SURNAME are relevant here, because we're not actually discussing the title of the article. But since the paperclip is the best-known office assistant character and is the subject of much of this article (being bolded in the lead and without a separate article of its own), I think the spirit of those policies should still apply. Clippit may have been its official name at some point in the past, but is no longer commonly used by either Microsoft or the general public. It should be mentioned as a historic name but not used throughout the article. Averixus ( talk) 08:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

For clarity: I certainly think that whichever name is chosen, they should both be mentioned and the relationship between them explained. The dispute is which should be used through the rest of the article, beyond the point where the character is introduced. Averixus ( talk) 17:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Both names, with precedence to status quo ("Clippit"). There are five sources in the above section, including ones which predate this Wikipedia article, which unambiguously say the character's name is "Clippit" -- not including the work itself from which he originated (i.e. Microsoft Office 97). If you are saying that Microsoft changed its name in the intervening time, then I would be glad to incorporate this into the article, but WP:COMMONNAME does not remotely say that you must always refer to things (even within an article) by their currently most commonly used name, or that the literal fact of someone's name is determined solely by common usage. jp× g 09:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

From WP:COMMONNAME:

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)

So aside from the fact it specifically refers to the title (as I mentioned above, I think the policy should be applied in spirit even though this case is not actually an article title), that's exactly what it says. Averixus ( talk) 11:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

This policy does not work the way you suggest, even for article names. Frankenstein's monster is not at the title "Frankenstein", despite many people calling him Frankenstein for the last two hundred years — this is even true despite the existence of movies like Bride of Frankenstein, Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, etc. Even if it was at that title, it would be absurd to retcon the article to call him "Frankenstein" throughout the whole thing. It may indeed be the case that "Clippit" is a stupid name (which it is) and that "Clippy" makes more sense (which it does). But it is completely inappropriate to rewrite articles to say untrue things because we think they should have been the case. jp× g 19:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

There are many instances in the article as it stands where a sentence says something about Clippit and then leads to a citation which only uses the name Clippy - isn't that absurd? Averixus ( talk) 20:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The policy doesn't comment on that scenario. but using JPxG's metaphor, it'd be like if we said that it was absurd that a source called Frankenstein's monster a Frankenstein, even though Frankenstein is the doctor not the monster, and we pretended that was a problem. Andre 🚐 20:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this argument is seriously lacking perspective. If a group of people representing the general public were asked who in the story "Frankenstein" the name Frankenstein refers to, a perhaps embarrassingly high number of people might say "the monster" - maybe a few dozen %? Whereas if a similarly large and representative group of people were asked whether the paperclip is called Clippit or Clippy, the majority of people wouldn't know and of the people who thought they knew, I'm thinking over 90% of people would say Clippy. These two examples are not comparable.

If all editions since the first called the monster "Frankenstein" and the doctor "Frankenstein's creator" at the request of the author, your analogy might apply. -- Cassolotl ( talk) pronouns: they/them 11:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

There's no evidence that 90% of people would say Clippy. That's a personal anecdote. But I do think the number of people who would call the Frankenstein monster just Frankenstein would be probably 90% of children and a good percentage of adults. Neither of us can prove this of course unless it's been studied. It's not really relevant to the scenario. Andre 🚐 18:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Just as a hypothetical, for a product whose official name has been Name B for some time, what percentage of people would need to be using Name B for you to agree that we should be using it instead of the obsolete Name A? -- Cassolotl ( talk) pronouns: they/them 23:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think there is a requirement to harmonize all old usages of the old name to use the new name, at all. The relevant question is how sources use the name and not a theoretical poll of the population. If sources use both names, we can as well. Andre 🚐 23:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

We've already established that about 80% of sources cited in the article primarily or exclusively use "Clippy", and only a handful use "Clippit". We should definitely mention both names, but it's pretty clear that current sources have a strong preference for Clippy. Averixus ( talk) 06:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Use both names, but prefer Clippit (the original and official name for 20 years) and do not systematically remove Clippy (a common unofficial nickname that was later used officially). This argument is a misunderstanding of the application of COMMONNAME and SURNAME because the former refers to titles, and the latter refers to fictional humans with first and last names. Andre 🚐 15:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
• Use both names per Andrevan - Official name was Clippit before being renamed Clippy so both names should be used. – Davey2010 ^Talk 15:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
• Mention both names in article lead, use either name in the rest of the article There's no reason to argue about which name is used after it's established that "Clippit" and "Clippy" are referring to the same animation. ( Summoned by bot) I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 19:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Use "Clippy", and have a small section on the history of its name further down the page. The original name hasn't been in common usage (including by Microsoft) for decades and this is really not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it is interesting and it apparently does have a valid source backing it up now. The primary goal should be understandability on Wikipedia and beyond, so use Clippy in the article overall, and then have a section further down called "change of name" or similar, saying "the original name was Clippit in [year] (source), and the earliest known use of Clippy is [name] [year] (source), followed by Microsoft in [year] (source). Microsoft has exclusively used Clippy over Clippit since [year]." And have Clippit and Clippy both redirect to this page.

I think that since no one seriously uses the name Clippit now* and being understood amongst each other and members of the public is very important, and since other similar-ish Wikipedia policies say we should use the most commonly-used and -known names for things/people, if anyone is advocating for the use of Clippit over Clippy in the main body of the article they are being a bit weird and they have a personal agenda, such as: popularising the older, more obscure name because they think everyone should use the older name because it's more legit in their opinion.

[*] I cannot stress this enough, this is not a big deal, and the name Clippit is not known outside of this page except by a very small handful of people! -- Cassolotl ( talk) pronouns: they/them 11:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this is exactly right.

"Clippit" as a name is of minor historical interest, but nothing more.

"Clippy" is used in about five times as many Bing results as "Clippit", on pages that also mention "Office Assistant" (going by Bing searches). The ratio is even higher if you replace "Office Assistant" with another relevant phrase like "help with", more than 16:1. Either way this is a huge difference, which can be at least partly explained by the fact that the name "Clippy" was in already common use by 1997 [1] while Microsoft itself had completely given up on using "Clippit" by the time they pushed him into semi-retirement in 2001. At some point, they seem to have made a corporate decision to memory hole the old name, and done so very effectively. Given the total lack of evidence of its creator-corporation using the old name in well over two decades, it seems safe to say that it is now *officially* "Clippy".

I wrote to the original designer of the paperclip-creature, who confirmed that it had been Clippit, but like the rest of the world, he refers to it as Clippy in public. [2]

As a side-note, this is a fascinatingly strong example of the so-called Mandela Effect! I was one of many who were incredulous that it had ever been called "Clippit" - an incredulity supported, of course, by the extreme difficulty of finding definitive documentation of the old, abandoned name. Oolong ( talk) 17:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

personal agenda, such as: popularising the older, more obscure name because they think everyone should use the older name because it's more legit in their opinion. Really, you seriously believe this uncharitable idea that someone has a personal agenda for Clippit, and not that it's the original, official name, the name given by the creator, and a widely used name in sources? That is not very good faith. I believe that you have a legitimate argument that I disagree with, and I would never accuse someone of a personal agenda because that is a violation of core civility policies such as WP:NPA and WP:AGF, and I take it as such. You say it's not a big deal, so why personalize it with a spurious accusation and casting WP:ASPERSIONs? Andre 🚐 18:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

As a thought experiment: if there was a standalone article for the paperclip character, would you argue that it should be titled "Clippit"? Or would you consider that WP:COMMONNAMES would justify titling it "Clippy"?

I'm just curious whether our disagreement here is about interpreting the policy itself, or if it's purely based on the fact that the policy doesn't apply here on the technicality of the name not being the article title. Averixus ( talk) 18:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

In the hypothetical example, COMMONNAME is clear that the article ought to be called Clippy, even though that's a nickname. Like Jimmy Carter. He's not a fictional character, but he's most widely known as Jimmy. But that does not, and it is not a technicality, require that the article refer to Carter as Jimmy the whole way through and never Carter or James. It's just a misinterpretation of the policy. COMMONNAME does NOT mandate consistency across all references to the person. Simply the title. Andre 🚐 18:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I see, thanks for explaining. So in that hypothetical case, you would maybe title it "Clippy" and then use "Clippit" through the article body? Averixus ( talk) 20:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

That would be possible - it depends on the context - but in doubt, you WP:PRESERVE the status quo and do not wholesale change to be consistent (no more than you do with the UK English spellings - status quo has precedence over consistency). I also want to point out that I myself edited this article in 2004 and used "Clippy," so clearly I do not have the posited "personal agenda" against "Clippy." [3] If anything, my agenda is against anti-consensus consistency-mongering. Andre 🚐 20:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

So when you talk about preserving the status quo - is Microsoft themselves phasing out the name "Clippit" in favour of "Clippy" for their own product several decades ago not the status quo? Is "Clippy" being the official name that is chosen and used by the company of origin, which has been adopted by the vast majority of the people who actually know the name, not the status quo? -- Cassolotl ( talk) pronouns: they/them 22:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Microsoft did not phase out Clippit in their own product decades ago. If Microsoft started using Clippy themselves, it was less than 10 years ago. And as far as what Microsoft itself officially uses, that is not a consideration as far as I know. Companies all the time decide to rebrand their products or to change how their products or characters are named, but we do not necessarily have to align with that on Wikipedia if there is a reason not to. Andre 🚐 22:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

"Microsoft did not phase out Clippit in their own product decades ago. If Microsoft started using Clippy themselves, it was less than 10 years ago."

I guess this is stuff I would put in the "history of the name" section. I'd want to see a source for the latest known time Microsoft used Clippit, and the earliest known time Microsoft used Clippy. If anyone can do that here concisely to help us make a decision that'd be awesome.

"Companies all the time decide to rebrand their products or to change how their products or characters are named, but we do not necessarily have to align with that on Wikipedia if there is a reason not to."

It would have to be a very compelling reason. Reasons might include the vast majority of present day users still using the old name, perhaps?

So, for example, as a not-very-frequent Wikipedia editor, I might expect to see something like the introductory sentence for Clip Studio Paint:

Clip Studio Paint (previously marketed as Manga Studio in North America), informally known in Japan as Kurisuta... [And then if the article refers to the app again by name it is called by its present name, Clip Studio Paint. The name change is described in the "history" section in the article.]

So, I'd expect to see that in this article. "Clippy, previously known as Clippit..." [And then if the article refers to it by name it is called by its present name. The name change is described in the "history" section in more detail.]

The original name is not the current official name and it hasn't been for some time now, it is not more well-known than the current name, it's not even the name the creator currently uses... "It's the original name" isn't enough on its own, by your own logic, and that's before you consider that the new name is also the current official name and the thing itself is pretty much only known by its current official name. I'm sorry, I genuinely can't see how "it's the original name" stands up at all. -- Cassolotl ( talk) pronouns: they/them 23:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

You're talking again about the title of the article, which is a different consideration than how the name is used throughout the article. When discussing the history of the character and its usage in Office 97 and Office 2000, it should indeed refer to the character as "Clippit" because that is what the character was called at the time. The "official" name, though, is not relevant at all. It'd be like if we changed every reference to Sean Combs to be P. Diddy or Puff Daddy. Clippy/Clippit has 2 names. A longer, original, originally-official name, and a nickname that later caught on. Consistency is not, and has never been required. Andre 🚐 23:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

So it sounds like you're saying that in the article, when we're referring to the Clippit version we call it Clippit, and when we're referring to the newer version we call it Clippy. That's different to your original proposal - would you like to update your proposal? -- Cassolotl ( talk) pronouns: they/them 23:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to decline to update my comment because I believe this description does align with what I wrote: since Clippit was the character's name at its inception and throughout its usage from 1997 to 2001, which is the historical time period during which the character was developed and came to prominence, plus the status quo of the article text, would lead to more usage of Clippit. But I also did not say I wanted to remove Clippy. Either name works, and discussing the history and evolution of the character is mostly going to be Clippit, but I believe this is all compatible which what I have written so far. Andre 🚐 23:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Ahh, okay, that clarifies your original proposal a lot. Thanks! -- Cassolotl ( talk) pronouns: they/them 23:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm replying again because I re-read your response and didn't understand how it was an answer to my question.

Is Microsoft themselves phasing out the name "Clippit" in favour of "Clippy" for their own product even several years ago (if not more) not the status quo? Is "Clippy" being the official name that is chosen and used by the company of origin, which has been adopted by the vast majority of the people who actually know the name, not the status quo?

I am wondering what it would take for you to consider that the name Clippy is the status quo. -- Cassolotl ( talk) pronouns: they/them 23:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The "status quo" refers to the status quo of the article text. That status quo is the only relevant status quo. Microsoft's corporate policy and their PR strategy is none of our concern at all. Andre 🚐 23:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh okay, misunderstanding then. 👍 -- Cassolotl ( talk) pronouns: they/them 23:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I already provided this example of Microsoft using 'Clippy' all the way back in 2001: [4] I haven't found a single example of them using 'Clippit' after that date, although someone in a comment somewhere on this page says that it was still used within the software itself circa 2004 (obviously that doesn't count as a Reliable Source).

Signs point strongly to an official name change more than two decades ago. Oolong ( talk) 09:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

As this source, supports, the Clippy name started to be used as Microsoft was promoting demoting or phasing out the character. However, the official name continued to be Clippit. See this source from 2021: [5] Microsoft will bring back a version of its infamous animated paperclip character Clippit — or Clippy, as it is popularly known Andre 🚐 12:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

This article is obviously not basing their claim on anything official, since the Microsoft Design Medium post they cite consistently uses the term 'Clippy'. This is consistent throughout twenty years' worth of official Microsoft communications, as far as we've been able to establish.

And of course, again, most reliable sources simply call it Clippy. Oolong ( talk) 16:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

What you consider to be obvious is actually quite a bit of guesswork and heavy lifting as to how a reference may be intended or interpreted. Chuck E. Cheese full name is Chuck Entertainment Cheese. But he is rarely referred to as such. Therefore, do we assume that is no longer his "official" full name? Andre 🚐 16:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"a widely used name in sources?"

As far as I've seen so far, that is a bit of a stretch. -- Cassolotl ( talk) pronouns: they/them 22:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Over 400 hits on Google Scholar. Andre 🚐 22:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

"Microsoft Clippy" gets 1,320 hits on Google Scholar, whereas "Microsoft Clippit" gets 242. -- Cassolotl ( talk) pronouns: they/them 23:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Just "Clippit" on Google Scholar was the search. And even 242 is still a pretty decent result for my claim that it is a widely used name. Andre 🚐 23:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure 242 is a decent result to show a widely used name. There are 711 Google Scholar results for the specific misspelling "autsim"! [6]

And again, five times as many relevant results for Clippy.

I think a fair summary of what we know looks something like this: 'Clippy' is far more commonly used. 'Clippit' was the official name, probably for at least three years at the end of the last century.

It is still described by some sources as being the official name. I would suggest this is probably thanks to the period when it was, combined with citogenesis thanks to Wikipedia taking a strong pro-Clippit stand for the last couple of decades. However, nobody has turned up any evidence that this name is still used by the creators or owners of this character, and we know that people were calling it Clippy right back in 1997. Oolong ( talk) 09:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The citogenesis claim is extremely incorrect. Clippit was the official name, and that is clear from the sources. Andre 🚐 12:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Citation needed for 'citogenesis claim is extremely incorrect'. Wikipedia has been for many years the main source for the assertion that 'Clippy' is the official name. What is your basis for asserting that this has nothing to do with the scattering of more recent uses of the name? Oolong ( talk) 16:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Citogenesis is the idea that somehow Wikipedia is causing other sources to describe things in a certain way. There is no evidence for this in this case, and it doesn't make sense to ask me for evidence of the absence of citogenesis, when the name Clippit was used in Microsoft Word 2000. Yes, in 2001, Microsoft announced that Clippy wasn't going to be in Office XP. However, if you load up Word 2003, it is still Clippit. But it's obvious that Wikipedia wasn't the source of the name Clippit still having currency when that was the name used in the software for the main period of time that Clippit obtained its notoriety. How Clippy got started and why it caught on, hard to say, but I'm sure Microosft's own anti-Clippy campaign had something to do with it. Still, you're assuming that the company called the product X therefore X is the "official name." I don't think we're ever going to find Clippy's long form birth certificate but honestly, just download a copy of Word 2000 and a Windows 98 virtual image. This is silly. Andre 🚐 16:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Both – if I'm understanding things correctly, the character used to be known as Clippit officially, and then at some point between 1997 and 2001 the official name was changed to the nickname of Clippy. Post-2001 references should use Clippy as the only actually in use name by then, but pre-1997 both should be an option and context may matter. If one has to be preferred, I have no real opinion (I don't know enough). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• Both with precedence to Clippit, per JPxG and Andrevan. Vaticidal prophet 08:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Both, with preference to the relevant time period. I like Skarmory's idea to use the prevalent name based on what was most popular at the time. More people know him today as Clippy, and we have not only help pages but a pattern of using more common names than their official name, a prime example being some political parties whether they are okay with it or not (see Chinese Communist Party over Communist Party of China, and Conservative Party (UK) over Conservative and Unionist Party). InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 12:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Follow policy, guidance, and honest use of cites -- Use "Clippy" -- I agree with User:Cassolotl above that the original name hasn't been in common usage (including by Microsoft) for decades so it is misleading where the title says "sometimes later called "Clippy", and I add one should stick to source usage. I would emphasize that small fraction of time "Clippit" was around and the findability of anything other than "Clippy" has reached the point of being so almost non-existent that the question is about even mentioning it at all, as something clearly going against WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD. And changing the labelling given in sources to something other than what they use seems corrupt. (e.g. the image "Clippy, hidden" here relabelled as "Clippit, hidden", and giving for "Clippit" history cites with titles about 'Hate Clippy', 'Clippy gets the pink slip', 'Twisted life of Clippy', 'Microsoft threatens to bring back Clippy', 'Clippy as an Office emoji'). Please only use the label "Clippit" for something about "Clippit", which is going to be very very rare -- the lead is having to resort to a 20-year old dead link to a remote college paper to get a mention --and only mention the name change at the level of coverage which seems way down if at all. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 16:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  @ InvadingInvader and Markbassett: You have to read the citations and not just the headlines; I gave these above.

  • https://www.ibtimes.com/clippy-lives-microsoft-revives-personal-assistance-office-2016-tell-me-feature-1994158 — The paperclip balancing on a sheet of paper, officially named "Clippit,"
  • https://web.archive.org/web/20070212204645/http://lis.dickinson.edu/Technology/Training/Tutorials/MsOffice/assistant.htm — Clippit, the default Office Assistant,
  • https://futurism.com/the-byte/microsoft-clippy-back-ai The former Microsoft Office mascot — technically named Clippit, though pretty much everyone calls him Clippy
  • https://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-city-life/2022/08/origin-story-of-clippy-the-microsoft-office-assistant ut nearly three decades after its genesis at the Redmond tech giant, Clippit—better known as Clippy—improbably lives on.
  • http://xenon.stanford.edu/~lswartz/paperclip/paperclip.pdf (reference one) cites the actual name as "Clippit" when it introduces the character on page 3 and later on page 22: Popularly known as “Clippy the Paperclip” (the default character, referred to in Microsoft Office itself as “Clippit”),

  Note in three of these, the headline of the article mentions "clippy" but the article is itself unambiguously clear on the name. jp× g 17:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• User:JPxG Content also uses "Clippy", which again this article misportrays as being for "Clippit". Even in the cites you mention it's overwhelmingly so. So why -- if the titles are "Clippy" and content is "Clippy" (even literally "pretty much everyone calls him Clippy" or in many cases not even mentioning anything but "Clippy") -- then why should this article be misportraying cites as saying "Clippit" ??? To revisit the cites of the History section I had indicated :

'Clippy hidden', "Clippy" is said in the image label that this article then mislabels.

'Hate clippy' - has "Clippy was based" and "Clippy... was a tragic misunderstanding", no "Clippit".

'Clippy gets the pink slip' - has "Clippy" 15 times, no "Clippit"

'Twisted life of Clippy' has "Clippy" 43 times, and once says "Clippit" at "Clippit—better known as Clippy" ...

'Microsoft threatens to bring back Clippy' -- "Clippy" 10 times, no "Clippit"

Clippit 'Clippy as an Office emoji' -- "Clippy" 12 times, no "Clippit"

Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 21:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Follow the example of the citations. If the citation uses primarily Clippit, then so should the sentence. If the citation uses primarily Clippy, then so should the sentence. If the claims about "Clippy" only being an 'unofficial' term are accurate, then you should expect citations to abound. I do not particularly believe this to be the case, but I don't understand how one could justify using it otherwise. Fox Room ( talk) 08:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Use Clippy but mention that the official name was Clippit as Averixus and others pointed out the majority of sources use the common name "Clippy" but specify that the official name was Clippit. We should do the same. {{u| Gtoffoletto}}   ^talk 23:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
• Clippy per WP:SURPRISE and the spirit behind WP:COMMON - As someone who still has a "Death to Clippy" plaque in a box somewhere, I can tell you that Clippit was never used in common parlance. In fact, I did not know that it had that moniker until I saw this RfC. Clippit should appear in the body. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 13:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Proposal. I'd like to suggest a solution based on the discussion so far. To summarise the responses as best I can, there have been:

• Four responses in favour of using both names with preference for "Clippit" as the original official name.
• One response in favour of using both names with no particular preference between them.
• Three responses in favour of using both names with preference for whichever name is primarily used in citations from the relevant period.
• Five responses in favour of using "Clippy", with a mention of "Clippit" and the naming history.

In practise, the suggestion to use whatever is preferred in the citations from the period will also result in preferring "Clippy". So overall this seems to be the predominant suggestion. There's not really a way to reconcile the responses favouring "Clippit" entirely. But I hope that incorporating some extra tweaks and explanation in the article will be a satisfactory solution for editors who want to emphasise the original official name.

I propose the following:

• Change the sentence in the lead that introduces the two names to: "The default assistant in the English version was originally named Clippit, and later became known as Clippy, after a paperclip."
• In the first paragraph of the Assistants section, explain that the paperclip character was originally introduced as "Clippit", and had become widely known as "Clippy" by both Microsoft and the public by 2001.
• Through the rest of the article, use whichever name is primarily used in references for the relevant information (in most places, this will be "Clippy", but it should be checked case by case - I've noticed at least one spot where "Clippy" is mistakenly used to refer to the office assistant in general).

Does anyone have suggestions to improve this proposal to better reflect the balance of opinions here? Would anyone be happy with it as it stands? Averixus ( talk) 19:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is not a majority vote. Please file a close request at Wikipedia:Close requests. A participants with a strong POV may not take the unbiased read necessary to close the discussion. Andre 🚐 20:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't attempting to make an unbiased close. I was offering a suggestion and asking for feedback. Averixus ( talk) 20:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I'm not convinced that this issue needs a brokered proposal. Why not just get an uninvolved closer to determine a fair compromise. It's possible they will probably come up with a relatively similar compromise to the one you are envisioning, anyway. But maybe with some slight distinctions that I might quibble with you on. But instead of quibbling now let's just get it closed since it's been open for long enough. Andre 🚐 20:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid needing to involve a separate closer in the discussion, as is widely recommended. I noticed that there had been a lot of top-level responses, and not a lot of attempts to find a mutually-agreeable solution, so I was trying to take a step towards a realistic consensus. If you (or anyone) think that's completely impossible in this discussion, then of course you're welcome to request an uninvolved closer yourself. Averixus ( talk) 22:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I will request it in a few days, if nobody sees this and closes it before I do. Andre 🚐 22:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that Averixus's reasoning is on point, and their proposal is an excellent alternative that should be explored now. There are two paths on this: (1) Go with the process, get a no-consensus close (the only thing that a reasonable RfC closer can conclude), then go through this again with their proposal; or (2) go with WP:IAR (a longstanding policy) and just get this done now, while we have an engaged discussion already going. I recommend the latter. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 22:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought, but since you also participated in your discussion, your close proposal only gives me more pause on such a "compromise" as essentially favoring your favored view as expressed; thanks, but no thanks, on behalf of myself who doesn't agree with the proposed read. A no consensus close might still find that certain things were agreed to in principle, or not agreed to, preserving the status quo of the article and the many years of hard work that contributors have dedicated to creating this obscure corner of the internet, and don't appreciate wikilawyering and gaming of the system to ruleslawyer in new changes to things that have stood for years. Andre 🚐 22:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

That was uncalled-for. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 22:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think that was uncalled-for - it's not personal, but you are attempting to muscle an RFC close using IAR? That is not cool with me, based on how the close may or may not play out. It's not personal at all. Andre 🚐 22:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)