Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks/Archive 11

< Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style | Trademarks
Latest comment: 12 years ago by SMcCandlish in topic Non-standard titles and "stylized" renditions
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Stylization vs. reliable sources

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I'm wondering what to do when an article name contains a stylization, but still reliable sources use that stylization. It was rejected at Talk:Kesha#Move request, now brought forward again at Talk:Wham!#Move request, and I think I've seen it quite often in similar discussion, so I'd like to know if reliable sources matter in such cases or if our decision to use or not use a stylized article title is independent from how reliable sources do it. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Generally, we seem to stick to our own consistent style (which is itself informed by reliable style sources) and defer to reliable sources about a subject only for the facts about that subject. There are different philosophies about this sort of thing, though, so there is usually some tension in these discussions. For some reason, we seem to defer to sources more often when the stylization is to use too much lowercase. I don't know what to tell you about the reluctance to move Wham!->Wham; I certainly see your point about being inconsistent. Ke$ha is arguably more objectionable than Wham!, but still. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, that's what I thought, too, and which makes most sense IMO. I mean, it's certainly never a bad thing to look at what reliable sources call an artist (or similar), but I feel we shouldn't let us dictate the article titles by that. Besides that even the sources that are considered reliable (which is really another thing for itself), even if they are actually reliable which should be true for most times, it may just be that the different context of a reliable source (e.g. newspaper, magazine, book) allows to use the stylized version of an artist. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, Yahoo! is Yahoo!. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC – WP title decision practice

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of WP:Article Titles policy. That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes. An RFC entitled: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy. As a project that has created or influenced subject specific naming conventions, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the RFC.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

non standard capitalization / spelling.

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

so soapbox is the primary potential danger, here? I don't think a non-standard english punct/ capitalization necess entails promotion of some entity or 'subject over another'. it's a bit more serious when choosing the correct title for an article. that's understandable.

but given the size & scope of wikipedia today, what the f does promotion of one 'subject over another' even mean? I think it would depend what page you start on when determining what's appropriate to link to/ draw readers attention to/ 'promote' next.

when reading any wikipedia passage for info, once you consume a sentence or paragraph, the question is: where do you go next, in the natural search for actual information? I am still under the assumption that that is what we all are pretty much doing when we visit 'pedia- getting info. not picking a fave brand/ shopping.

sure, if we open the door to non-standard english punct/ capitalization, it could get out of hand, but -- well, I thought 'tumblr.' was OK. is that too far gone or what? any thoughts? thanks. skakEL 19:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-standard titles and "stylized" renditions

Latest comment: 12 years ago25 comments6 people in discussion

This discussion began with a series of page moves to a non-standard title. They were reverted per WP:MOSTM. In compromise I appended <Band Name> (stylized as <band name>) which was also reverted per the same policy. The scope requires a broader discussion than the article talk page allows. The RFC has been moved here at the behest of IllaZilla, the editor who first objected to my contributions. Please consider the discussion; and append your regards to the following questions:

  1. Is it ever appropriate to title an article about a band according to non-standard convention? If so under what circumstances? If not briefly state why?
  2. When would it be appropriate to show the "stylized" rendition prominently in the lead as shown in Kesha?
  3. Is the policy governing article titles for band names adequate or should it be clarified further?

Thank you for considering this content discussion in the context of dispute resolution. - My76Strat (talk) 08:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Prior discussion between My76Strat and IllaZilla, copied from IllaZilla's talk page
  • My76Strat, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks): Wikipedia uses standard English capitalization for proper nouns regardless of the preferences of trademark holders. It is for the same reason that we don't print band names in all-caps even though they may appear this way on pretty much everything the band has ever released (eg. METALLICA). You should not take it upon yourself to move numerous articles without first establishing a consensus that this is appropriate. The topic has been discussed many times at Talk:Blink-182 and consensus to follow the Manual of Style and standard capitalization rules has always won out. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
    Very well, thank you. - My76Strat (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
    I suppose when you figure out why k.d. lang is an appropriate article title you will also know why blink-182 should be. My76Strat (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
    It's not. That article title goes against our manual of style and the standard rules of English and should be changed. Think of the many thousands of musical artists, product brands, movie/book/album titles, etc. that are branded either in all-caps or all-lowercase. Do we then type them as all-caps or all-lowercase on Wikipedia? No, because this is an encyclopedia, not a branding guide. "k.d. lang" is no more of an appropriate article title than "METALLICA" would be, or "daria", or "HARRY POTTER and the Philosopher's Stone". --IllaZilla (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I have to disagree with your last reverts ([17], [18], and [19]) where I showed the stylized rendition. Perhaps you have an explanation. I was following the examples set in other articles including an FA. What gives this time? My76Strat (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
    As I said in my edit summary, typing in all-caps or all-lowercase is not a stylization. Stylization involves the alteration of normal characters or word structures, not merely laying on/off the shift key. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
    You are assuming things not stated, except by you, regarding the edits. And you are reacting as if no other editor considers; or understands policy. It is not the mere graphical presentation, aesthetics of the album cover, that prompt the designation as "stylized". However when you consider the album's representation, the occurrences in 100's of sources where the brand is rendered this way, and often, (as is the case with blink-182), specific sources where the proprietor has declared the style election. These facts, conjoined, are the litmus; for making the important declaration of "artistic intent".

    I spent a great deal of yesterday reading WP:MOS and several previous discussions. While your position regarding encyclopedic prose v. branding is fair; worthy of consideration! It does not constitute an overriding authority to regulate contributions solely to your expectations. Of the hundreds of independent sources, I have compiled the following list:

    *herman de vries; **bis; ****spinART; **of Montreal; *a-ha; **:wumpscut:; **(həd) p.e.; ***Yellow mY skYcaptain; **Sunn O))); **Fenix*TX; **blink-182; **matchbox twenty; **HIM; **HiM; **kent; ***far; ***Isn't Anything; (album shows the **my bloody valentine brand); **BrokeNCYDE; *k.d. lang; **the pillows; *INOJ; ***Definitely Maybe (album shows the **oasis brand); ***aMotion, and ***eMOTIVe (albums show the **a perfect circle brand); and the ***In Utero article, an FA, that shows track #11 as: "tourette's". (* = People), (** = Ensembles), (*** = Albums), (**** = Companies)

    All of these examples were clued to my attention by the preponderance of sources; which told the underlying story of these avante garde artists who dare to break convention; declaring themselves in a non-standard manner. You should also know that several independent manuals of style make the following declaration: "In the case where an artist uses a non-standard capitalization with an artistic intent, the original capitalization used by the artist should be preserved." They go on to give the following: "Examples include [k.d. lang (artist)], [Yellow mY skYcaptain (release)], and ["tourette's"] - track #11 on the release In Utero. (with their own biographical links; not mirrors of Wikipedia) You should note the manner and appearance of these articles in Wikipedia. And also note that where the articles are not titled according to the brand, a mention is made regarding the "stylized" artistic rendition.

    I recommend you improve upon your assumptions and constrain your overly diligent manner of forcing your style preferences. Even your manner of reverting fails to acknowledge good faith! This form of disregard seeds, and then waters negative sentiments. I prefer to discuss collaborations, and am willing to pursue dispute resolution where discussion fails. I will reinstate the firmly established "stylized" examples in both articles. This is not vandalism and if you are not satisfied you can request additional sources, or pursue a valid consensus; through discussion. My76Strat (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

    I find it somewhat humorous that almost no one would agree with typesetting in all-caps the titles/names of the 1,000s of artists, albums, books, films, etc. that appear in all-caps on their covers and artwork, yet when it's all-lowercase or wonky capitalization editors get all in a twist about "aesthetics", "graphical representation", and "artistic intent". This is an encyclopedia: We are typing sentences in English and following the rules of English typography. How a music artist, or any other entity, chooses to brand themselves in logos and artwork does not have a bearing on the rules of typography. For every example you care to name, there are dozens more in which standard capitalization is used on Wikipedia and in the majority of sources even though it isn't in the brand: eg. Adidas (not adidas), Fresh & Easy (not fresh & easy), Friends (not F•R•I•E•N•D•S), etc. etc. Heck, most of the examples you cited above are typeset on Wikipedia according to standard English. We don't need to make special note of every non-standard branding in lead sentences; It's superfluous and, in the vast majority of cases, not noteworthy or encyclopedic. By your logic almost every article would have to begin with "<Artist Name> (stylized as <artist name>)", eg. "Descendents (stylized as DESCENDENTS)", "Paramore (stylized as paramore)", etc. It's totally superfluous and unimportant to an understanding of the subject, especially when placed prominently in the lead sentence. Your insistence on typesetting names and titles as they appear in brands is silly: On Neighborhoods Blink-182's name is in all-caps, with no hyphen and a backwards "N". Do we now have to note everywhere that this is an alternate stylization of their name? Of course not. We have a Manual of Style for this; If you want to change it, you need to take it up on the MoS talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
    Your logic fails when you give examples like METALLICA or any other album cover that typesets in all caps because what you do not have are reliable sources that also express the brand in that fashion. Show me one WP:RS that shows Metallica in all caps. On the other hand the examples I've shown go beyond the albums cover into reliable sources. You are not being reasonable and you are attempting to force your style. We'll take this to the next level. Cheers - My76Strat (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
    Addendum - Considering your examples above, look also at the reference. paramore;[20] METALLICA; [21] DESCENDENTS. [22] Now compare a-ha [23] and blink-182. [24] Can you see the difference between mere aesthetics and corroborated independent sourcing? My76Strat (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Argh. This is dirt-simple, folks. Put it at plain English and explain the typographic silliness in the lead. See Client (band) and Spinal Tap (band) for examples. If people insist (as they do at the real article title that Motley Crue redirects to and which I can't be bothered to find special characters for) on enforcing purely diacritic character distinctions in article titles, let them. We also do this for personal names (see where Gulsen Degener redirs to, for example). No one cares, and you have better things to spend your time on. If people want to push non-diacritic character changes, like moving Client (band) to CLIEИT to match their album covers, then strongly resist. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 21:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
    That's sort of what led us here in the first place: My76Strat moved every Blink-182 related article to have a lowercase b ("blink-182") in the title, against this MoS, and I moved 'em back. He insists, then, that we acknowledge the lowercase in the opening sentence: "Blink-182 (stylized blink-182)...". I think that's just stupid, totally unnecessary, and reeks of (for lack of a better term) fan-ishness. No one besides hard-core fans cares that the band's name is often typeset with a lowercase b. It's certainly not something that needs to be blared out in the first sentence of an encyclopedia article about them, right after their name and in bold typeface; It does nothing to help a reader understand who Blink-182 is. It's especially annoying because it's something seen all over musician articles: anytime an artist uses lowercase or a backwards letter or something, editors/fans seem to think this "artistic intent" needs to be loudly declared right at the very beginning of the article, as if we must be certain readers know they often use a lowercase b. It just makes lead sentences read like fansites, at least to me anyway. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
    Moving the articles and trying to emulate the band's typography is pointless and against MOS. Writing "Blink-182 (stylized blink-182)..." or something to this effect in the lead is perfectly normal. It's sourceable and noteworthy information, and "what we do" in cases like this. See Client and Spinal Tap examples above and most everything else mentioned at metal umlaut, just for starters. It would be downright weird to never mention that the band always spells it "blink-182". It's simply not true that no one cares about it just because you don't. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 02:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    Well said. I concur. Dicklyon (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    On second thought, after making the change, and then reverting myself for being unable to find any evidence of the lower-case styling, I'd like to ask what's the basis for saying they style their name that way. Just their painted logo? It hardly counts if no secondary source has picked up on that. Dicklyon (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    Agreed; I was assuming that the assertion that [b|B]link-182 always spells their name that way was valid (I don't know anything about that band, really). The other examples I cited I do know about. 'Kesha...stylized as "Ke$ha"...' is another good example (at least going by current data; for all we know, she might abandon that style with the next album and we know facts about notable people are often moving targets, more generally). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 10:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
    SMcCandlish, I disagree that it's "noteworthy". If we noted every artist name/tv show/album title/etc. that appeared in all-lowercase in the relevant logo/title card/album sleeve/etc. it would be a ridiculous amount of "(stylized as...)" side notes across thousands of articles (and imagine if we did the same for the all-caps cases...). Backwards lettering or use of umlauts is a less common occurrence, and represents a more convincing case that the text has been "stylized" in some way; it's debatable whether simply not using any capital letters is "stylization", since it doesn't involve the alteration of any normal English characters (use of foreign characters, inverted/reversed characters, leet, etc.). Perhaps I shouldn't be so general as to say "no one cares"; What I mean is "merely noting that a name is often typset in all lowercase, while it may be true, is pedantic and doesn't serve to help a reader understand what the subject of the article is, so placing it so prominently in the lead sentence seems undue."
    Dicklyon, My76Strat has made the argument that there are secondary sources that generally typeset the name in all-lowercase (mainly Allmusic), but I don't think that their doing so means we need to make special note of it in article leads. And while a majority of the band's album covers over the years have typeset the name in all-lowercase, there is a great deal of merchandise and branding that doesn't (by way of personal example, I own 2 of the band's t-shirts from different periods in their career and both render the name in all-caps, as does the cover of their most recent album which also drops the hyphen and reverses the N). And I might argue that to make special note of it, it would take more than a secondary source just "picking up on it" (aka also typesetting it in lowercase); The source would have to make note of it in some way to show that the "stylization" is somehow noteworthy. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
If your theory were correct, there 'would be a ridiculous amount of "(stylized as...)" side notes across thousands of articles', but there's not, so it's obviously a non-issue. People only make such annotations in response to consistent usage, like Mötley Crüe. Doing so demonstrably reduces move-warring and other "name correctness" bickering. Of all things to be alarmist about on Wikipedia, this is probably in the top 5 least important of all time. To whatever degree you believe "no one cares", you need to internalize that and feel it as well as just know it; if it's not something people care about, it's probably not worth further debate. This is yet another one of those things where editors coming to a consensus at the article in question is the best option, because there's not a compelling reason to MOS-enshrine a proscriptive rule about it. PS: I've yet to see anyone suggest extending any of this beyond performer names, to titles of works. PPS: Much of this whole debate is sorely confusing the characters (glyphs) used in a name with the typographic styles applied to them (typeface/font, bold/italic, colored, all-caps, whatever). They are two completely different if connecting concepts, like vegetables versus the seasonings we put on them.
The "blink-182" usage doesn't seem consistent enough after all to be noteworthy. It's a lot like Siouxsie and the Banshees. They were consistently "Siouxsie & The Banshees" (note the two differences) for a quite a while but it ultimately didn't stick (it may have been a trademark issue, after changing labels; I really don't know). Contrast this with The The, which is always, always, always capitalized like that; music writers consistently spell it "The The", not "the The" or any other variant. And I don't think anyone is advocating that it be rendered, in the lead, as "The The" like it is on the album covers I've seen. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 10:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
(outdent)
What sprang to my mind here, rather at random, was kd lang (which redirects to k.d. lang). That I think is a nonstandard title to start with, although the lead starts "Kathryn Dawn Lang (born...) known by her stage name k.d. lang. THis seems to me to contravene WP:TITLE in many ways: first the nonstandard cap, secondly shouldn't the article be at Kathryn Dawn Lang and the above be an R to it, (Kathryn Lang is a DAB page on which she is listed), third the lack of space after fullstop in the name (MOS:PUNCTSPACE), and so on. I don't particularly object to any, since I'm not a fan of her music and it's the first time I've bothered to look. What may be more relevant, though, is that I have seen her name in the press (i.e. secondary sources) and often it is printed with lower case k. d., sometimes with or without stops, so I doubt sourcing for that would be a problem. e.g. here:
Gittins, Ian (3 June 2011). "kd lang and the Siss Boom Bang – review". The ButGuardian. Retrieved 18 March 2012.
On the other hand the BBC has used KD in capitals (and no stops), e.g. here:
I just throw that up as perhaps a good/bad "canonical" example of changing the letterforms, punctuation etc. Ignore me if you think it irrelevant, and I am not grumbling about k.d. lang or those pages at all, just that it might form a kinda canonical example without worrying even about reversed characters and those from other alphabets etc.
Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I've just read the initial discussion, which I should have done before, and before I go on I should like to say that both sides have been nothing but civil and AGF in each other, and are a credit to what Wikipedia is all about.
Now I stick by my thinking that k.d. lang could perhaps serve as the "canonical example" just because it has so many sources. Metallica was also mentioned in the article and a quick Google search for "metallica wembly news" (all lower case) returned this among others in the top search:
Obviously the BBC has its own style guide, probably several for different branches to fit with context, and so I am not suggesting we slavishly follow that. But it does give an example of where a house style guide overrides how the band itself writes it (if I understand correctly that usually the band branding etc. is all-caps).
To take the other extreme: Should we write it in a Gothic font because the band does? If the band (or any other trademark/copyright holder) insists their name is only written in blue should we then put <style color="blue"> in the title or something? Obviously things should conform to the WP style guide (which is far too complex and detailed for anyone ever to know but just have to use common sense and hope for the best), as every other big publisher has its own house style. While there are exceptions, the presumption should be to put things into house style. Si Trew (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Putting her at Kathryn Dawn Lang would violate WP:COMMONNAME in massive way. Anyway, you are raising a different though not unrelated issue. We were talking about whether it's okay to even mention artist typography at all, or (in some bits of the discussion, to mention it in the lead), but you're talking about using it as the actual article title. There are strong arguments against using characters not on the English keyboard as article titles, and these don't apply to article prose. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 10:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks/Archive_11&oldid=1089794260"