Talk:Hurts Like Heaven

Requested move 23 August 2015

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: no consensus. Votes roughly split, reasonable arguments from both sides. This is probably one that needs to be trashed out at the talk page guideline where it looks like consensus to might be to make it more flexible. Jenks24 (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Hurts Like Heaven → Hurts like Heaven – Per WP:COMMONNAMES, inaccurate titling or capitalizing should be avoided, even when commonly used. Many sources uppercase like as if... it's not a preposition or any other preposition (but an exceptional preposition). I was able to find news articles lowercasing like: Gigwise, RadioTimes, The Northern Echo, and GMA Network. However, these are all I can provide; as said, many sources uppercase like. We can't argue over a mere capitalization; in fact, like Talk:Smells Like Teen Spirit and Talk:Do It like a Dude (specific) and archived discussions at WT:MOSCL (general), such a discussion would lead to nowhere and typically no consensus, especially when WP:NCCAPS normally encourages lowercasing short prepositional words with no more than four letters. This leads to one question: shall we treat "hurts like" like either a verb + preposition or a phrasal verb (exempli gratia Count On Me and Come On Over)? If the former, then WP:NCCAPS should be enforced, even if it appears bureaucratic, which Wikipedia is not. But Wikipedia is not democracy either. If the latter, then... I can't put my words into it. Of course, the whole message would be ignored, and then capitalization on a preposition like like would be the only main thing in someone's minds, thus leading this discussion to nowhere, like it always has been... George Ho (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 01:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Rolling Stone NPR Spin The AV Club and The Independent. Calidum 14:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I feared you would say that. You didn't say whether "like" is a preposition or part of a phrasal verb. George Ho (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying it's irrelevant and we should follow reliable sources. In your nomination statement you correctly note Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. That means 1) we don't enforce rules for the sake of doing so and 2) rules should reflect actual practice. It's clear from previous move requests (including a similiar one at "Smells Like Teen Spirit") we can follow the sources and capitalize "like" in article's title. Calidum 15:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

If whether like is a preposition or not is irrelevant, then why do sources uppercase it in the first place? Is that also irrelevant? --George Ho (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

When I said Wikipedia's not a democracy either, a majority might not win, exempli gratia Talk:Like a Virgin (song). --George Ho (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Absolutely no reason to disrupt encyclopedic content to affirm an otherworldly policy point. SOURCES DON'T DO IT LIKE THIS. GregKaye 22:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye and Calidum: Do you intend to avoid answering which part of speech like is? If so, congratulations. We can't escape the cycle of nowhere. George Ho (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

My answer above stands for itself. This isn't an academic exercise about whether "like" is a preposition, phrases verb or zygote. Calidum 00:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic, but how is "like" treated in She Like Electric? --George Ho (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I think its being used as a preposition. GregKaye 11:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Support, per house style. FWIW I can find "reliable sources" that capitalize every word of every song title. Should we now be discussing which reliable source is more reliable and therefore decide without reference to our own guidelines. What a mess! --Richhoncho (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

If you're referring to news articles and books uppercasing or lowercasing like, it's no use. Many reliable sources outnumber those lowercasing the word. And the appropriate venue to decide which source is reliable is WT:RS, which I am planning for the future. And I don't understand how itdiscussing it here helps more. George Ho (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support: Wikipedia has a house style expressed by MOS:CT, and we should follow it. See similar remarks at Talk:Do It like a Dude, Talk:Moves like Jagger, Talk:Someone like Me, Talk:Someone like You (Adele song). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The house style is unclear on this matter. The longer but very common words "with" and "from" are the basis for putting "like" in lowercase, but four-letter prepositions (amid, down, past, save, plus, over, near, into, onto, upon, than, atop, thru) in titles are rarely put in lowercase in practice, and one might question rather if "with" and "from" should in fact always be capitalized. Either way, the debate is far from closed. It is very unusual to put "like" in lowercase outside of Wikipedia, and it is not a universal rule of English capitalization that four-letter prepositions should always remain uncapitalized. Practice would suggest the rule people follow is really "capitalize all four-letter prepositions except 'from'" (and maybe "with"), and there's nothing wrong with that. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI, the Man in Question, I searched "past" and "save" in Wikipedia. Titles that use save as preposition are nonexistent in Wikipedia; they might be rare outside. As for past, it's rarely (I could be wrong) used as a preposition in titles. I found two: Years Past Matter and Six Hours Past Thursday, but I found the latter not notable and nominated it for deletion. As said, both are rarely used as prepositions in titles. --George Ho (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Wait, past may be often used as preposition. George Ho (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Truly. I did not mean "rarely used in practice" on Wikipedia; I meant in general. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@the Man in Question: You may not like the MOS:CT rules (I know I don't), but they are far from unclear: "The words that are not capitalized [...] are [...] Prepositions containing four letters or fewer". When you see that the prepositions upon, over, down etc. are almost always capitalized in Wikipedia titles, this only means that those titles are in violation of MOS:CT. Darkday (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose It seems very strange to me that, when our most reliable sources, including industry publications, uses what we know with certainty is the correct use of a name, that we would intentionally choose what we know not to be correct. The proposed title is overwhelmingly preferred by the policy of using the most common name, and the manual of style specifically encourages editor discretion. The MOS is great for our writing style and when the official or common name might be unknown, but to argue that it should be used to take an official name with a specifically chosen title that is used by the absolutely overwhelming majority of reliable sources, including books, newspapers, and websites, as well as is the generally common name is fairly absurd. Our title guidelines and policies are unfortunately somewhat murky. But, what it comes down to can be gleaned from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), which states that "an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility". If Spin is using a style, and Rolling Stone or the books written that discuss the song or just the bulk of reliable sourcing in general largely use the official title, is it really common sense for us to be saying we shouldn't be following the sources here in order to somehow adhere to conventions and gain credibility? Wikipedia is a unique construct in that our work is so clearly tied and based off of reliable sourcing about the subject -- making us stand out and go against the grain here just doesn't make much sense.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support: like is clearly a preposition here, so according to MOS:CT is must be lowercased. I think following the MOS is important to maintain internal consistency (compare Moves like Jagger, Do It like a Dude, Someone like Me). The best solution IMO would be to adapt the Wikipedia MOS regarding like and similar prepositions, since the MOS rules seem unworldly. But as long as the MOS says the preposition like should be lowercased, I will vote in favor of that. Darkday (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: This basically boils down to the question which should have precedence: The Wikipedia house style or external sources. Just a few days ago it was proposed to change the Manual of Style to give external sources precedence (provided they are consistent and of high quality). You may want to weigh in on the discussion. Darkday (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2015 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurts Like Heaven. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121231163829/http://katkrazymusic.com/2012/12/coldplay-hurts-like-heaven-kat-krazy-remix/ to http://katkrazymusic.com/2012/12/coldplay-hurts-like-heaven-kat-krazy-remix/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 03:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)