Talk:N.A.T.I.O.N.

Nation vs N.A.T.I.O.N.

I decided to start the article here rather than at N.A.T.I.O.N. because, while the sources I can find and the cover art do use the caps and periods, it's pretty clear that "N.A.T.I.O.N." doesn't stand for anything, is primarily used for emphasis, and the word "nation" is what is meant. I'm sure the title is also meant to be said "Nation" rather than spelt out—I'm sure nobody is saying "N-A-T-I-O-N". If anybody wants to change instances of the stylized title on articles to "Nation", that's fine by me, but for the moment I've left them and piped them here. Anyway, if anybody disagrees with the article location, rather than requesting a technical move or moving it yourself, please start a move discussion. Thanks. Ss112 13:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Ss112, Thanks for getting the ball rolling. I agree with keeping at Nation (Bad Wolves album). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Just letting you know that there's a requested move here now below. Ss112 00:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 18 October 2019

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus (non-admin closure) OhKayeSierra (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Nation (Bad Wolves album) → N.A.T.I.O.N. – this is how the title is written Jax 0677 (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Jax 0677: Should I obey this, or reject it as a stylization? Is N.A.T.I.O.N. an acronym anywhere? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @Anthony Appleyard:, AFAIAC, obey it, but let us have the discussion. The backronym may be revealed on October 25. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support per WP:TITLETM. Based on a quick check of secondary sources, 'N.A.T.I.O.N.' seems to be used by most or all of them (but if someone finds otherwise after a more thorough review, I'll happily reconsider). I don't think Ss112's rationale for the current title in the discussion section above is well-grounded in policy. Colin M (talk) 04:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Colin M: Colin, if you read what I said above, you would already know that I acknowledged that most sources use "N.A.T.I.O.N." and that this is a contributing factor when we name articles. But considering the fact that the title does not appear to stand for anything and has not been revealed to stand for anything, I chose to start it here even though I created both redirects. Per WP:TMRULES, "Using all-caps is preferred if the letters are pronounced individually, even if they don't (or no longer) stand for anything." They aren't, it is said "nation". Regarding the point above that, I did not invent "Nation", it is already used in several sources. Otherwise, please do tell me which policies you think I am disregarding. Ss112 00:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: My understanding is that WP:TMRULES is about formatting in running text. For article titles, the relevant policy is WP:TITLETM (which is basically just a slightly strengthened version of WP:COMMONNAME). You may think it's odd that we have a separate set of policies for how to render trademarks in article titles vs. in the body (and I would agree with you), but it is what it is. Colin M (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose stylism. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per my reasoning above and my ultimate conclusion it is just a widely-used stylisation. Ss112 00:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose unless N.A.T.I.O.N. is revealed to be an acronym or bacronym. Lazz_R 14:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:TITLETM, which says if a stylization is widely-used, we should use it, even if it is not considered standard English. Calidum 19:57, 30 October 2019 (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 23 August 2020

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) Moved - closing RM, consensus is clearly to move. Listed for over 8 days. --IWI (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Nation (Bad Wolves album) → N.A.T.I.O.N. – Per our title policy, "When a name is almost never written except in a particular stylized form, use that form on Wikipedia." The current title is entirely unused in reliable sources.

While discouraging stylizations when usage in reliable sources is not clear, our manual of style is also crystal clear that we should not use title styles that are unused in reliable sources. In fact, even for something as weird as special characters we are told to use them if are used in a "significant majority of reliable sources." Given that it's hard (if not nearly impossible) to find reliable sources using the current title, our policy is clear that the current one is unacceptable, failing our policies for recognizability, usage, and pretty much everything else. As our policy says, "do not "correct" the spelling, punctuation, diacritics, or grammar of trademarks to be different from anything found in reliable sources—the name should be recognizable as referring to the topic."

As an encyclopedia that relies entirely on outside reliable sourcing, Wikipedia should not be using titles that are pretty much (if not entirely) only existing on Wikipedia itself. We lose credibility when we instead use titles that are entirely inconsistent with others. It reminds me of RZA, a page that because of overly strict misinterpretation of our stylization policy was for years at Rza, a title no one used, was less recognizable, and even our own article did not use because there was clear common sense it was not right. Yaksar (let's chat) 18:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'd also ask users who oppose this move because of our styling policy to please explain why we should ignore the very clear guidelines in the manual of style describing how to approach title styles that are used in all reliable secondary and primary sources. Otherwise, citing our styling guidelines alone would mean the move is needed. --Yaksar (let's chat) 18:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support - per WP:COMMONNAME. Sergecross73 msg me 22:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom, and because the proposed title acts as natural disambiguation. Steel1943 (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.