Talk:Apathy is Boring

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on Apathy Is Boring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 30 June 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago28 comments8 people in discussion

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved. See general agreement below to rename this article to the proposed title. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 05:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

It was proposed in this section that ApathyisBoring be renamed and moved to Apathy is Boring.

The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment.

Links: current log • target log

ApathyisBoring → Apathy is Boring – I tried moving "Apathy Is Boring" to "Apathy is Boring", but failed. Need help to fix now! ʤɛfiːpiː (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. — Newslinger talk 02:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Comment – Maybe it belongs back where you found it, at Apathy Is Boring? Moving to an intermediate bad name was silly. Dicklyon (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
- Yeah … mistakes were made. ʤɛfiːpiː (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Oppose per Dicklyon and per MOS:CT. The "I" in "is" should indeed be uppercase. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
- I tried finding a counter-argument in MOS:TM, but could not find one. Despite them using the trademark with a lowercase 'is', perhaps you're right for Wiki display purposes.ʤɛfiːpiː (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
  - I think MOS:TM says we can follow the trademark styling if that's what all the sources do. Is this a trademark? MOS:CT says to cap the "Is", but is this a composition title? I don't know the right answer here. Dicklyon (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
    - On their logo from https://www.apathyisboring.com/about it says "APATHY IS BORING.™", but in all documentation I've seen, it's always written out at "Apathy is Boring" or "AisB". Similarly, at the bottom left of their pages, it's written "© 2019 Apathy is Boring". Their working name is certainly Apathy is Boring, and it's how they're referred to in the media, but whether that's their actual trademark, I'm unsure.ʤɛfiːpiː (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Support as nom, as it looks like it's their trademarked name https://www.apathyisboring.com/about . ʤɛfiːpiː (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
That's not the relevant criterion in MOS:TM. Dicklyon (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Support Seems like the name on their website._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
That's not the relevant criterion in MOS:TM. Dicklyon (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm personally going by WP:COMMONNAME, as well as WP:COMMONSENSE._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

There's no question about what the common name is, just the letter styling. I don't see anything at commonsense that bears on this either. But I do think the MOS:TM would support the requested move; it doesn't require the caps that way MOS:CT does; or does it? I'd like to see more rationale on this... Dicklyon (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Neutral – my comments above are questions, not support or opposition. I don't much care, but would be happier if respondents would reference policy or guidelines instead of just off-the-cuff opinions. Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Speedy support per documentation Apathy is Boring : https://www.apathyisboring.com/ CONNECT, EDUCATE & ACTIVATE. Apathy is Boring is a non-partisan, charitable organization that supports and educates youth to be active and contributing citizens in Canada's democracy. More About Us ... cf Debates of the Senate: Official Report (Hansard). 2009 - The project ran from November to April 2009 with school visits occurring between January and March with the support from The Dominion Institute and Apathy is Boring. A large majority, perhaps two thirds of the students I met with, were either.. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Comment. In styling its logo, this organization uses all caps ("APATHY IS BORING") however, in writing about itself, it uses the stylistic form, occasionally seen elsewhere, of indicating forms of to be (Be, Am, Is, Are, Was, Were, Been) in lowercase. That outdated stylistic form has been deprecated in English Wikipedia, per MOS:CT and, when imported into Wikipedia from the outside, it is wikified. For an extended discussion focused upon whether exceptions to MOS:CT are warranted in individual instances, see Talk:A Boy Was Born#Requested move (November 2013), with additional arguments continuing for another year, to December 2014. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
- That ruling was "It appears we have agreement that "A Boy was Born" is more common, but both stylizations are in use. Considering this, it appears we have consensus to default to Wikipedia's style guidelines, which recommend the proposed title". I imagine that Wikipedia's style guidelines were chosen because both stylizations were used. In this case, only Apathy is Boring is used in articles, and on their website. ʤɛfiːpiː (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  - MOS:CT is not merely a Wikipedia invention, but is based upon authoritative sources, such as the AP Stylebook and other style guides which specify uppercase for "Is" and other verbs in titles. The WP:IAR lowercase stylization in "Apathy is Boring" is not universally accepted, with various sources indicating uppercase "Is": [1][2][3][4][5][6]7 lowercase in main title header and uppercase in lead paragraph. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Support moving away from CamelCase. The no-spacing style is just a style, and when used there is a different styling to indicate word separation. Wikipedia doesn't follow source styles unless meaningful and consistent, and neither applies here. No opinion (yet) on I vs i. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
The case of "Is" is the only issue here. The current unspaced title is just a transient he got into by trying to get there in a roundabout way, and nobody is considering let it stay. Dicklyon (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
OK good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Support Apathy is Boring. Lowercase is. https://www.apathyisboring.com/about uses lowercase is. Reject the MOSCT on copula, which someone randomly without discussion added long ago, yes verbs should be capitalised, but not is, the copula are different. No source capitalises "is" in Apathy is Boring except where it is driven by ALLCAPS styling. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

The above (04:59, 10 July 2019) comment provides seven sources which capitalize the "I" in "Is" without resorting to ALLCAPS styling. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

1. This is titled with Title case # Start Case. Every first letter capitalised. Go to the styling-free first sentence, "Apathy is Boring is a non-partisan". This is evidence contradicting your position.

2. "Apathy Is Boring Wants To Make A Difference". Same as source 1 above, start case. The source has no text, so is next to useless.

3. "Apathy Is Boring Engages the Rage". Same as source 1, Start Case. Get past the title, "Members of Apathy Is Boring. " "Apathy is Boring" throughout the text. Your position contradicted.

4. You are correct.

5. I can't access it, maybe later. Later. On the chase. You are right on this one.

6. Title could be Start Case. The name is not repeated on the page.

7. "Apathy is Boring". Title supports my position, as does 3 out of 5 uses in the body, 2 out of 5 instances inconsistently capitalise "Is". Looks like carelessness.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Note: Announcement of this discussion appears at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization) and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I just want to clarify something here... when deferring to source usage, we DON’T look at logos or how the name appears on the company website... we DO look at the capitalization used by independent sources. Blueboar (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
We do look at them, but we don’t give them much or any weight. We do weight highly capitalization by reliable reputable independent sources, but not to the point of every copying any source’s styling. Roman’s links show that *some* others capitalize “Is” not due to styling. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2019 (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.

Add topic