Talk:Commando Memorial

Title

Previous discussion of use of definite article at beginning of title:

I've reversed your move because WP:THE actually allows the definite article in this case - The Commando Memorial is actually the name of the work, and WP:THE also allows it so as to avoid confusion with the generic form which could refer to several potential articles. MickMacNee (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that WP:THE permits use of the definite article when referring to "Titles of works and publications", however this is not a work or publication. While it is possible to see this subject as a work of art, its primary function is as a monument, i.e. it is an object, not a work of art. An article called The Commando Memorial would be more likely to be a painting of such a memorial, or a novel centered on it. Furthermore, to suggest that use of the definite article serves to distinguish this article from others does not stand. If there were a disambiguation issue arising with other articles about commando memorials - of which there is none - then this article being called The Commando Memorial would in fact denegrate the status of the other memorials, suggesting that this is the only or definitive memorial. Such an issue could be resolved simply by renaming this article as Commando Memorial (Spean Bridge). Do you not agree? Johnhousefriday (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a work, scupltures are works, and this was its official title. As nobody has painted it, or written a whole book about it, under that name, this splitting of hairs would appear to be a moot point. The guideline doesn't have to explicitly include sculptures for that common sense interpretation to stand. It is also valid under the General Usage section of WP:THE - this sculpture is the clear WP:PRIMARY use of the term 'The Commando Memorial'. And because it is the clear primary usage, it is also patently not a denigration to other monuments to have it at that title, and have all others, if they exist, filed under a generic disambiguation page at Commando Memorial. That would require a single hatnote. In my research, there are no others with the exact title, they all have qualifiers in their official and even common usage names, and those variations are likely due to this particular monument having been built first, and being the most widely known one. Moving this to just Commando Memorial, or worse, appending uneccessary disambiguators, will be detrimental. If you disagree still, I would ask you to copy this whole discussion to the article talk page, and formally request a third opinion, as I cannot really say anything further without getting into the realms of repetition. MickMacNee (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I should like to address some of the points you raised before seeking a third opinion.

Regardless of whether such a book has been written or picture painted, the point is that these are the sorts of works where it is relevant to use the definite article. This is the distinction which Wikipedia has developed.

Adopting a purposive approach, the reason that Wikipedia has developed this distinction and advises against using the definite article in titles is to encourage uniformity and predictability so that there is one style used by all. That one style is that definite articles are not used in page titles unless the page is about a "work or publication", such as a book, film, play, newspaper etc. but not something such as this monument which forms a part of the area around it. See The Angel of the North, The London Eye and The Eiffel Tower, all of which could easily be given definite articles by that reasoning but which are not, because their nature, scale or significance makes them more than just a structure but a part of the landscape. Johnhousefriday (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

First off, due to its generic nature, I see zero gain in terms of predictability in locating a specific article under such a generic phrase, which is of course not an issue for the examples you cite. Unlike 'Commando Memorial', it is highly likely that people typing in 'The Commando Memorial' and arriving here will not end up being surprised. The only flaw is that Wikipedia doesn't generally have hatnotes informing readers that if this wasn't the memorial they were looking for, then sorry, you are out of luck as no other articles currently exist. Which brings us to the long and the short of it - even if you removed the 'The', this article would still then reside at Commando Memorial, and even if other articles turn up and that becomes a dab page (which would need three articles to exist btw), then per PRIMARY and DAB, all that would happen is that this article would just move back to 'The Commando Memorial'. But like I said, all I'm doing now is repeating myself, so please seek a third opinion and I promise I will abide with whatever they say, as its a trivial matter all told. Although whatever happens, even if the title changes, the opening line should still be The Commando Memorial, because that is the title of the work and the name in which it was commissioned, in the exact same way that Angel of the North beings with The Angel of the North is.... MickMacNee (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of the points raised but I still think it would be more appropriate to remove the 'the'. Definite articles are in my experience not used in situations like this, but only for things which are purely works of art, e.g. books or drawings. It's likely though that we've both become irreconcilably entrenched in our positions so I have requested a third opinion as suggested. Johnhousefriday (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. From WP:3o. I'm not convinced the name of the work is "The Commando Memorial." I suggest that per [1], which seems definitive, the name of the work is "Commando Memorial." Unless someone can convince me otherwise, I would support moving this article to "Commando Memorial," leaving The CM as a redirect, and merely removing the bolding from the "The" that leads off this article. Thoughts? Hipocrite (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The name of the statue that sits on the top of this monument is clearly, per the first reference, "The Commando Memorial", and that would be the proper name for an article about only that sculpture itself, but I can find no evidence or suggestion in the references which would indicate that the sculptor designed the entire monument, that is, the statue, the column upon which it sits, and the surrounding grounds and garden. The proper reference to the monument and the proper name for this article is, therefore, "Commando Memorial". And that is, indeed, the manner in which it is used in the Daily Mail reference and in all the other listed references that I checked (though I did not check them all), except for the first reference, which is specifically about the sculptor and the sculpture, per se. I concur, therefore, with Hipocrite. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)