Talk:BLACKsummers'night

Requested move 6 June 2016

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 nom. WP:DIFFCAPS permits this move, and as it's essentially unopposed, there we go. No such user (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

---

• Blacksummers'night (2009 album) → BLACKsummers'night
• Blacksummers'night (2016 album) → BlackSUMMERS'night

– Capital variations and other such stylizations are generally frowned upon by MOS:TM, hence the recent moves of these articles by In ictu oculi. However, the current formatting implies that the albums are identically titled, which is not exactly the case given the clear emphasis on each word. (According to the artist, these are the first two albums in a trilogy.) I say we IAR this, especially since the stylizations are honored in a host of reliable sources including Pitchfork, Billboard, Rap-Up, Entertainment Weekly, LA Times, and NY Times (if the headline in the lattermost link is ignored). --Relisting. — Music1201 ^talk 04:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No opposition to retaining the parenthetical dabs if others deem it necessary, however the caps should be sufficient per DIFFCAPS. Chase (talk | contributions) 15:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

Requested move 8 December 2016

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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

---

• BLACKsummers'night → Black Summers' Night (2009 album)
• BlackSUMMERS'night → Black Summers' Night (2016 album)

– MOS:TM stylisms gone bonkers. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: @In ictu oculi: MOS:TM states nothing about adding additional spaces into titles. See the example on MOS:TM for LittleBigPlanet. Steel1943 (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

LittleBigPlanet is an order of magnitude different from marginally notable cases such as above, the general principles of MOS:TM would apply to stylistic spacing as well. But @Steel1943: the spacing isn't really important, undoing the above move and returning to Blacksummers'night (2009 album) and Blacksummers'night (2016 album) would achieve the same result. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed titles. I do agree with the nominator that they probably should be moved, but not to titles with extra spaces. See my comment to the nominator above for more details. Maybe the alternative is to move the titles back to their previous titles. See the previous move request: No one participated in that move discussion other than the nominator. Steel1943 (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Support alternative as above, restore original titles In ictu oculi (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed. The titles are intentionally odd, but not totally out of step with MOS:TM. Per the guideline, we "Do not 'correct' the spelling, punctuation, or grammar of trademarks." Here, the vast majority of sources appear to write the titles exactly as they appear here: BLACKsummers'night and blackSUMMERS'night.[1] "Black Summers' Night" appears not to be in use, so it's not going to be a workable title. Moving to Blacksummers'night (2009 album) and Blacksummers'night (2016 album) may be an option, but very few sources appear to use "Blacksummers'night" without the caps for either album. MOS:TM advises us to de-capitalize the trademark if the decapitalized version "is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one". That doesn't seem to be the case here. Additionally, the situation is unique in that the different capitalizations serve to disambiguate the two titles from each other. On the balance, I think the current title is the best one.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. MOS:TM is only a guideline, and a frequently misinterpreted one at that. It typically applies to cases where a topic known widely by one name is trademarked/stylized/promoted by an uncommonly-used variant. Think adidas. I also oppose the move to any title that removes the capitalization documented in the vast majority of reliable sources discussing these albums, per the HIStory precedent. I am not strongly opposed to adding "(20xx album)" disambiguation to the titles (assuming the capitalization is retained), but I think it's unnecessary per WP:DIFFCAPS. Chase (talk | contributions) 02:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cuchullain and Chasewc91, retain current titles. I'm not normally a big fan of WP:DIFFCAPS, WP:SMALLDETAILS etc, as often the "small details" in question fail WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. However, in this case, it looks like the DIFFCAPS is an intentional differentiator by the artist himself, and are found styled that way in almost all reliable sources, so it seems fine to do it this way, and a good textbook case for where DIFFCAPS is useful.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

---

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.