Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles/Archive 3

The following discussion 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.

---

This is an RfC to determine whether to use upper-case The or lower-case the in when referring to (the/The) Beatles in running prose. This RfC is the result of a formal mediation case - please see the background and evidence below for a more detailed explanation. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Background

This poll was created as the result of a mediation case at the center of a long-standing dispute. The purpose is to gauge current community consensus in regard to capitalising the definite article ("the") mid-sentence when referring to the band also known as the "Fab Four". The poll will run for 30 days, after which the results will be evaluated by Newyorkbrad.

Note

Previous attempts to resolve this controversy have included an agreement to minimise use of the band's name mid-sentence. Although this agreement resulted in a relative "truce" for a little over a year, the resulting formal mediation case shows that it did not ultimately resolve the issue.
More seriously, "minimisation" of mid-sentence usage can only be a definitive solution if it is interpreted as a mandatory ban on all mid-sentence usage of "The/the Beatles". During mediation, it was concluded that this would place an excessive restriction of language on a large number of articles. Such a restriction would necessitate far-reaching changes to Wikipedia's manual of style that are outside the scope of this poll.

Options

When the band's name is used mid-sentence as a noun:

• Lower-case – Use a lower-case definite article ("... when the Beatles recorded ...").
• Upper-case – Use an upper-case definite article ("... when The Beatles recorded ...").

Evidence for lower-case

• While both "BEATLES" and "THE BEATLES" are registered trademarks of Apple Corps Ltd, using "Beatles" mid-sentence as a noun requires a preceding definite article ("the") for the sake of grammar, but does not infringe on the trademarked names because Wikipedia is not using them for the purpose of advertising or soliciting purchases of goods or services. As such, trademark law, and Apple's protected trademarks, do not in any way whatsoever affect Wikipedia's freedom to use whichever format of the band's name we prefer. Please see the following citation for clarification:

Our in-house style guide, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks states:

• "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'."

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Trademarks states:

• "Trademarks should be written in a way that follows standard English text formatting and capitalization rules."

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Capitalization states:

• "Standard English text formatting and capitalization rules apply to the names of bands and individual artists".

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) states that a lower-case definite article should be used in band names:

• "Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word 'the' should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g. 'Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues.'"

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Capitalization states:

• In band names, and titles of songs or albums, capitalize all words except:

• articles (an, a, the)

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters says:

• "Generally do not capitalize the definite article in the middle of a sentence."

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Flags#Inappropriate use:

• "For example, with an English flag next to him, Paul McCartney looks like an 'English singer-songwriter from Liverpool who was in the Beatles'; without the flag next to him, he looks like an 'English singer-songwriter from Liverpool who was in the Beatles'".

The Wikipedia Manual of Style says:

• "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." That was this version, which uses "the".

Our MoS is clear and consistent. Absent a compelling reason to ignore the advice from our in-house style guide we should follow standard English text formatting.

Wikipedia articles about bands with a definite article mid-sentence in their name almost exclusively use a lower-case definite article, including:

• Sly and the Family Stone, Derek and the Dominos, Country Joe and the Fish, Toad the Wet Sprocket, Big Head Todd and the Monsters, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, Jason & the Scorchers, Kid Creole and the Coconuts, Big Brother and the Holding Company, Mott the Hoople, Hootie & the Blowfish, Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Gary Lewis & the Playboys, Shep and the Limelites, Rage Against the Machine, Harold Melvin & the Blue Notes, Lori and the Chameleons, Joey Dee and the Starlighters, Martha Reeves and the Vandellas, Ziggy Marley and the Melody Makers, Kool & the Gang, Little Anthony and the Imperials, Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, Echo & the Bunnymen, Tommy James and the Shondells, Johnny and the Hurricanes, Gladys Knight & the Pips, Huey Lewis and the News, Gerry and the Pacemakers, KC and the Sunshine Band, Jay and the Americans, Freddie and the Dreamers, Maurice Williams and the Zodiacs, Georgie Fame and the Blue Flames, Billy J. Kramer and the Dakotas, Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch, Toots and the Maytals, Booker T. & the M.G.s, ? and the Mysterians

All known external style guides recommend using a lower-case definite article mid-sentence, including:

• The Oxford Style Guide (UK): "Beatles, the, a pop group, 1960-1970." (R. M. Ritter, 2003, p.633)
• The Times style and usage guide (UK) says: "Beatles, the, no need to cap the unless at the start of a sentence". (2003, p.24)
• The Guardian and Observer style guide (UK) says: "band names: lc the: the Beatles, the Killers, the The."
• The Chicago Manual of Style (16th edition, US) specifically uses "the Beatles" as an example and states: "A the preceding a name, even when part of the official title, is lowercased in running text." (2010, p.416)
• On page 92 of New Hart's Rules (Oxford, UK) there is a list of examples for the capitalization of names, one is "the Beatles", with a lower-cased definite article. New Hart's Rules also states: "Historians commonly impose minimal capitalisation on institutional references" and "minimise the use of capital initials where there is no detectable difference between the capitaized and the lower-case forms" and "overuse of capital initials is obtrusive, and can even confuse by suggesting false distinctions". (2005, p.90)
• Fowler's Modern English Usage (Oxford, UK), "a festival celebrating the music of the Beatles". (2004, p.293)
• Butcher's Copy-editing (Cambridge, UK) says "in a sentence the definite article should be lower-cased". (2006, p.241) Also in Butcher's: "too many capitals can be obtrusive and distracting for the reader." (p.126)
• The Duke University Style Guide (US) says: "Avoid unnecessary capitals."
• The UPI Style Book & Guide to Newswriting states: "Avoid unnecessary capitals." (Martin, Cook, 2004, p.40)
• From The Copyeditor's Handbook: "down style [lower-case] predominates in book publishing." (Einsohn, 2000, p.151)
• The Christian Writer's Manual of Style states: "The purpose of capitalisation is to show that a given word has a specialised or specific meaning rather than a general one ... avoid capitalisation whenever it is not needed for such purposes of specification". (Hudson, 2010, p.105)
• The Scout Association's style guide (UK) says: "the – Keep as lower case for bands (the Rolling Stones)."
• The Yahoo Style Guide says: "We recommend lowercasing 'the Beatles', except at the beginning of a sentence, for two main reasons: Reason No. 1: expedience. Lowercasing 'the' in every proper name makes life much easier. Reason No. 2: aesthetics. Lowercasing 'the' in every proper name also produces a consistent look—a look that, moreover, conforms to normal English usage. To the Yahoo editors, capitalizing 'the' in the middle of a sentence simply looks odd."

High-quality secondary sources printed in the UK by UK publishers using a lower-case definite article mid-sentence include:

• Cambridge University Press (Moore, 1997), Oxford University Press (Everett, 1999), Ashgate (Julien ed., 2008), Macmillan (Martin, 1997), Continuum (Womack, 2007) and Virgin Publishing Ltd. (Harry, 2000).

High-quality secondary sources printed in the US by US publishers using a lower-case definite article mid-sentence include:

• Harvard University Press (McKinney, 2003), State University of New York Press (Womack, 2006), University of Michigan Press (Austerlitz, 2007), University Press of Mississippi (Frontani, 2007), University of Illinois Press (Wiener, 1991), University Of Chicago Press (Bromell, 2002), University of California Press (Waksmen, 2009).

The highest-quality printed secondary sources (authors) who use a lower-case definite article mid-sentence include:

• Mark Lewisohn (considered the world's leading expert on the Beatles), Bill Harry (founder of Mersey Beat), Bob Spitz, Philip Norman, Hunter Davies, Walter Everett, Barry Miles and Jonathan Gould.

High-quality on-line secondary third-party sources that use a lower-case definite article throughout include:

• Harvard Business Review, The New Yorker, The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, The Detroit News, Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, Montgomery News, The Miami Herald, Denver Post, The Seattle Times, The Economist, The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Independant, The Liverpool Daily Post, Herald Sun, The Sault Star, Time, Details, Entertainment Weekly, People, Fortune, Reader's Digest, Entrepreneur, Oxford Dictionaries, Dictionary.com, Duke University Magazine, Bloomberg Businessweek, Forbes, the Atlantic, Blender, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, Wired, Billboard, Mojo, Vibe, Spin, Allmusic, MTV, Smithsonian, National Geographic, The Saturday Evening Post, The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, the White House.gov and the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

High-quality printed sources from the historical record which support use of a lower-case definite article mid-sentence include:

• The Montreal Gazette - Feb 19, 1964, The Palm Beach Post - Oct 8, 1964, St. Petersburg Times - Jun 13, 1965, The Milwaukee Sentinel - Oct 27, 1965, The Deseret News - Aug 5, 1966, The Milwaukee Journal - Aug 11, 1966, The Evening Independent - Aug 19, 1966, New Musical Express - 2 September 1967, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - Mar 13, 1969, The Palm Beach Post - Apr 10, 1970, The Milwaukee Journal - Oct 28, 1970, The Owosso Argus-Press - Jan 19, 1971, The Montreal Gazette - Feb 22, 1971.

Approximately 80% of the high-quality printed secondary sources used to source Wikipedia articles related to the Beatles and other bands use a lower-case definite article mid-sentence. The vast majority of WP:RS tend predominantly toward a lower-case "the" mid-sentence and there is an obvious existing practical consensus strongly favouring a lower-case definite article. Wikipedia should be consistent with the overwhelming global consensus represented in published books dealing with the Beatles and other bands currently used to source Wikipedia articles.

Click on "show" (far right) to uncollapse a list of 150 high-quality WP:RSs currently used to source Beatles articles on Wikipedia. All of the following sources use a lower-case definite article mid-sentence throughout.

Anderson, Jennifer Joline (2010). John Lennon: Legendary Musician & Beatle. Abdo Publishing Company. ISBN 978-1-60453-790-1. Austerlitz, Saul (2007). Money for Nothing: A History of the Music Video, from The Beatles to The White Stripes. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-7119-7520-5. Benitez, Vincent Perez (2010). The Words and Music of Paul McCartney: The Solo Years. Praeger. ISBN 978-0-313-34969-0. Bennahum, David (1991). The Beatles After the Break-Up: In Their Own Words. Omnibus Press. ISBN 978-0-7119-2558-8. Benson, Bruce Ellis (2003). The Improvisation of Musical Dialogue: A Phenomenology of Music. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-00932-4. Blaney, John (2005). John Lennon: Listen To This Book. Paper Jukebox. ISBN 978-0-9544528-1-0. Blecha, Peter (2004). Taboo Tunes: A History of Banned Bands & Censored Songs. Backbeat. ISBN 978-0-87930-792-9. Bogdanov, Vladimir; Woodstra, Chris; Erlewine, Stephen Thomas (2001). All Music Guide: The Experts Guide to the Best Recordings. Backbeat Books. ISBN 0-87930-627-0. Borack, Borack (2010). John Lennon: Life is What Happens. Krause Publications. ISBN 978-1440213915. Boyd, Pattie (2007). Wonderful Tonight. ISBN 978-0-307-40783-2. Brackett, Nathan; Hoard, Christian (2004). The New Rolling Stone Album Guide. Billboard. ISBN 0743201698. {{cite book}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Bramwell, Tony; Kingsland, Rosemary (2006). Magical Mystery Tours: My Life with the Beatles. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-0-312-33044-6. Bromell, Nicholas (2002). Tomorrow Never Knows: Rock and Psychedelics in the 1960s. University Of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226075624. Bronson, Fred (1992). The Billboard Book of Number One Hits (3rd revised ed.). Billboard Books. ISBN 978-0-8230-8298-8. Brown, Peter; Gaines, Steven (2002). The Love You Make: An Insider's Story of The Beatles. New American Library. ISBN 978-0-451-20735-7. Buk, Askold (1996). "Strum Together". Guitar World: Acoustic (17). Cadogan, Patrick (2008). The Revolutionary Artist: John Lennon's Radical Years. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 978-1-4357-1863-0. Campbell, Michael (2008). Popular Music in America: The Beat Goes On. East Windsor, CT: Wadsworth. ISBN 978-0-495-50530-3. Carlin, Peter Ames (2009). Paul McCartney: A Life. Touchstone. ISBN 978-1-4165-6209-2. Coleman, Ray (1984). John Winston Lennon. Sidjwick & Jackson. ISBN 978-0-283-98942-1. Cohen, Sara (2007). Decline, Renewal and the City in Popular Music Culture: Beyond the Beatles. Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 978-0754632436. Coleman, Ray (1984). John Ono Lennon: Volume 2 1967–1980. Sidgwick & Jackson. ISBN 978-0-283-99082-3. Coleman, Ray (1992). Lennon: The Definitive Biography. Harper. ISBN 0-06-098608-5. Cook, Nicholas (2009). The Cambridge Companion to Recorded Music. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521684613. Dailey, Forrest (2003). The Fifth Magician: The Great Beatles Impostor Theory. AuthorHouse. ISBN 978-1410759887. Davies, Hunter (1968). The Beatles (Revised 2009 ed.). New York & London: W.W. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-33874-4. Davis, Todd F.; Womack, Kenneth (2006). Reading the Beatles: Cultural Studies, Literary Criticism, And the Fab Four. State University of New York Press. ISBN 978-0791467169. DeRogatis, Jim; Kot, Greg (2010). The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones: Sound Opinions on the Great Rock 'n' Roll Rivalry. Voyageur Press. ISBN 978-0760338131. DeWitt, Howard A. (2000). The Beatles: Untold Tales. Kendall Hunt Pub Co. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isnb= ignored (|isbn= suggested) (help) Doggett, Peter (2009). You Never Give Me Your Money: The Beatles After the Breakup (1st US hardcover ed.). Harper. ISBN 978-0-06-177446-1. Dowlding, William J. (1989). Beatlesongs. Touchstone. ISBN 978-0671682293. Edmondson, Jacqueline (2010). John Lennon: A Biography. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-313-37938-3. Emerick, Geoff; Massey, Howard (2006). Here, There and Everywhere: My Life Recording the Music of The Beatles. Gotham. ISBN 978-1-59240-269-4. Epstein, Brian (1998) [1965]. A Cellarful of Noise. ISBN 978-0671011963. Everett, Walter (1999). The Beatles as Musicians: Revolver through the Anthology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-512941-0. Everett, Walter (2001). The Beatles As Musicians: The Quarry Men through Rubber Soul. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-514105-4. Fisher, Marc (2007). Something in the Air. New York: Random House. ISBN 978-0-375-50907-0. Frontani, Michael R (2007). The Beatles: Image and the Media. University Press of Mississippi. ISBN 1-57806-965-3. Gambaccini, Paul (1996). The McCartney Interviews: After the Break-Up (2 ed.). Omnibus Press. ISBN 978-0-7119-5494-6. George-Warren, Holly (editor) (2001). The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll (2005 revised and updated ed.). Fireside. ISBN 978-0-7432-9201-6. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help) Giuliano, Geoffrey (1997). Dark Horse: The Life and Art of George Harrison (Revised ed.). New York: Da Capo Press. ISBN 0-306-80747-5. Giuliano, Geoffrey (1999). Glass Onion: The Beatles In Their Own Words. Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0306808951. Goldberg, Philip (2010). American Veda: From Emerson and the Beatles to Yoga and Meditation. Doubleday. ISBN 978-0-385-52134-5. Goldman, Albert Harry (2001). The Lives of John Lennon. Chicago Review Press. ISBN 978-1-55652-399-1. Gould, Jonathan (2007). Can't Buy Me Love: The Beatles, Britain and America (First Paperback ed.). Three Rivers Press. ISBN 978-0-307-35338-2. Gracen, Jorie B. (2000). Paul McCartney: I Saw Him Standing There. Watson-Guptill Publications. ISBN 978-0-8230-8372-5. Graff, Gary (January 2000). "Yesterday & Today". Guitar World. 20 (1).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) Greene, Joshua M. (2008). Here Comes the Sun: The Spiritual and Musical Journey of George Harrison. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-12780-3. Grelsamer, Ronald P. (2010). Into The Sky With Diamonds: The Beatles And The Race To The Moon In The Psychedelic '60s. AuthorHouse. ISBN 978-1452070537. Havers, Richard (2010). The Beatles: The Days of Their Life. Chartwell Books, Inc\isbn=978-0785827016. Huntley, Elliot J (2004). Mystical One: George Harrison: After the Break-up of the Beatles. Guernica Editions. ISBN 1-55071-197-0. Harrison, George (1980). I, Me, Mine. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-671-42787-3. Harry, Bill (2000a). The Beatles Encyclopedia: Revised and Updated. Virgin. ISBN 978-0-7535-0481-9. Harry, Bill (2003). The George Harrison Encyclopedia. Virgin. ISBN 978-0-7535-0822-0. Harry, Bill (2000b). The John Lennon Encyclopedia. Virgin. ISBN 978-0-7535-0404-8. Harry, Bill (2002). The Paul McCartney Encyclopedia. Virgin. ISBN 978-0-7535-0716-2. Harry, Bill (1985). The Book Of Beatle Lists. Poole, Dorset: Javelin. ISBN 0-7137-1521-9. Hertsgaard, Mark (1995). A Day in the Life:The Music and Artistry of the Beatles. ISBN 0-385-31517-1. Howard, David N. (2004). Sonic Alchemy: Visionary Music Producers and Their Maverick Recordings. Hal Leonard Corporation. ISBN 0-634-05560-7. Ilson, Bernie (2008). Sundays with Sullivan: How the Ed Sullivan Show Brought Elvis, the Beatles, and Culture to America. Taylor Trade Publishing. ISBN 978-1589793903. Inglis, Ian (2000). The Beatles, Popular Music and Society: A Thousand Voices. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0312222369. Inglis, Ian (2010). The Words and Music of George Harrison. Praeger. ISBN 978-0313375323. Jisi, Chris (October 2005). "He Can Work It Out". Bass Player. 16 (10). Julien, Olivier (ed.). Sgt. Pepper and the Beatles: It Was Forty Years Ago Today. Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-754-66708-7. Kane, Larry (2003). Ticket To Ride: Inside the Beatles' 1964 Tour that Changed the World. Running Press. ISBN 978-0762415922. Kaufman, Will; Macpherson, Heidi, eds. (2005). Britain and the Americas: Culture, Politics, and History. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1851094318. Kastan, David Scott (2006). Oxford encyclopedia of British literature. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-516921-8. Kirchherr, Astrid (1999). Hamburg Days. Guildford, Surrey: Genesis Publications. ISBN 978-0-904351-73-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Kruse, Robert J. II (2009). "Geographies of John and Yoko's 1969 Campaign for Peace: An Intersection of Celebrity, Space, Art,and Activism". In Johansson, Ola, Bell, Thomas L., editors (ed.). Sound, Society and the Geography of Popular Music. Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-7577-8. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link) Kukla, Tina (2003). The Beatles: Live at 12 Cold Creek Street. Virtualbookworm.com Publishing. ISBN 978-1589393905. Larkin, Colin (1998). All Time Top 1000 Albums: The World's Most Authoritative Guide to the Perfect Record Collection. Virgin. ISBN 978-0-7535-0258-7. Lawrence, Ken (2005). John Lennon: In His Own Words. Andrews McMeel Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7407-5477-7. Lawrence, Robb (2009). The Modern Era of the Les Paul Legacy: 1968–2008. Hal Leonard. ISBN 978-1-4234-5531-8. Lavezzoli, Peter (2006). The Dawn of Indian Music in the West: Bhairavi. New York and London: Continuum. ISBN 978-0-8264-1815-9. Leng, Simon (2006). While My Guitar Gently Weeps: The Music of George Harrison (Revised ed.). Hal Leonard. ISBN 1-4234-0609-5. Lennon, Cynthia (2005). John. New York: Crown Publishers. ISBN 978-0-307-33855-6. Lennon, Cynthia (1978). A Twist of Lennon. Avon. ISBN 978-0-380-45450-1. Levy, Joe (editor) (2005). Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time (First Paperback ed.). Wenner Books. ISBN 978-1-932958-61-4. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help) Lewis, Roger (1995). The Life and Death of Peter Sellers. London: Arrow. ISBN 978-0-09-974700-0. Lewisohn, Mark (1992). The Complete Beatles Chronicle:The Definitive Day-By-Day Guide To The Beatles' Entire Career (2010 ed.). Chicago Review Press. ISBN 978-1-56976-534-0. Lewisohn, Mark (1988). The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions. New York: Harmony. ISBN 978-0-517-57066-1. Lewisohn, Mark (editor) (2002). Wingspan: Paul McCartney's Band on the Run. Little, Brown. ISBN 978-0-316-86032-1. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help) Loker, Bradford E. (2009). History with the Beatles. Dog Ear Publishing. ISBN 978-1608440399. Mackenzie, Maxwell (1998). The Beatles: Every Little Thing. It Books. ISBN 978-0380796984. Manning, Sean (2008). Rock and Roll Cagematch: Music's Greatest Rivalries, Decided. Crown Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-307-39627-3. Mansfield, Ken (2007). The White Book. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. ISBN 978-1-59555-101-6. Martin, George; Hornsby, Jeremy (1994). All You Need Is Ears. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-0-312-11482-4. Martin, George (1994). Summer of love: The making of Sgt. Pepper. ISBN 978-0-333-60398-7. Marsh, Dave (2007). The Beatles' Second Album. Rodale Books. ISBN 978-1594864261. McCartney, Paul; Mitchell, Adrian (editor) (2001). Blackbird singing: Poems and Lyrics 1965–1999. W.W. Norton and Company Inc. ISBN 978-0-393-02049-6. {{cite book}}: |first2= has generic name (help) McGee, Garry (2003). Band on the Run: A History of Paul McCartney and Wings. Taylor Trade. ISBN 978-0-87833-304-2. McKinney, Devin (2003). Magic Circles: The Beatles in Dream and History. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674012028. Miles, Barry (1997). Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now (1st Hardcover ed.). Henry Holt & Company. ISBN 978-0-8050-5248-0. Miles, Barry (2009). The British Invasion: The Music, the Times, the Era. Sterling. ISBN 978-1402769764. Miles, Barry (2002). In the Sixties. Jonathan Cape. ISBN 978-0-224-06240-4. Molenda, Michael (November 2005). "Here, There, and Everywhere". Guitar Player. 39 (11).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) Moore, Allan F. (1997). The Beatles: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-57484-6. Mulhern, Tom (July 1990). "Paul McCartney". Guitar Player. 24, No.7 (246).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) Mulligan, Kate Siobhan (2010). The Beatles: A Musical Biography (Story of the Band). Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-37686-3. Norman, Philip (1996). Shout!: The Beatles in Their Generation. New York: Fireside. ISBN 978-0-684-43254-0. Norman, Philip (2008). John Lennon: The Life. New York: Ecco/HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-075401-3. O'Donnell, Jim (2006). The Day John Met Paul: An Hour-by-Hour Account of How the Beatles Began. Routledge. ISBN 978-1452070537. Pawlowski, Gareth L. (1990). How they became the Beatles. Plume. ISBN 978-0452265066. Patterson, R. Gary (1998). The Walrus Was Paul: The Great Beatle Death Clues. Touchstone. ISBN 978-0684850627. Perone, James E. (2008). Mods, rockers, and the music of the British invasion. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0275998606. Peebles, Andy; Lennon, John; Ono, Yoko (1981). The Lennon tapes: John Lennon and Yoko Ono in conversation with Andy Peebles, 6 December 1980. British Broadcasting Corporation. ISBN 978-0-563-17944-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Reeve, Andru J. (2004). Turn Me On, Dead Man: The Beatles and the "Paul Is Dead" Hoax. AuthorHouse. ISBN 978-1418482947. Raymer, Miles (2010). How to Analyze the Music of Paul McCartney. Abdo Publishing Company. ISBN 978-1-61613-531-7. Riley, Tim (2011). Lennon: The Man, the Myth, the Music—The Definitive Life. New York: Hyperion/HarperCollins. ISBN 978-1-4013-2452-0. Riley, Tim (2001). Tell Me Why: A Beatles Commentary. Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-306-81120-3. Roberts, David (editor) (2005). British Hit Singles & Albums (18 ed.). Guinness World Records Limited. ISBN 978-1-904994-00-8. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help) Rodriguez, Robert (2010). Fab Four FAQ 2.0: The Beatles' Solo Years, 1970–1980. New York: Backbeat. ISBN 978-0-87930-968-8. Rosen, Craig (1996). The Billboard Book of Number One Albums. Billboard. ISBN 978-0-823-07586-7. {{cite book}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Rots, Martin (2011). The Beatles: Behind Closed Doors. CreateSpace. ISBN 978-1468057225. Rowley, David (2008). Help! 50 Songwriting, Recording and Career Tips used by the Beatles. Matador. ISBN 978-1-906221-37-9. Ruhlmann, William (2004). Breaking Records. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-94305-5. Ryan, David Stuart (1982). John Lennon's Secret: A Biography. Kozmik Press. ISBN 978-0-905116-08-2. Sandford, Christopher (2006). McCartney. Carroll & Graf. ISBN 978-0-7867-1614-2. Sawyers, June Skinner (editor) (2006). Read the Beatles: Classic and New Writings on the Beatles, Their Legacy, and Why They Still Matter. Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-303732-3. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help) Schaffner, Nicholas (1977). The Beatles Forever. Harrisburg: Cameron House. ISBN 0-8117-0225-1. Schaffner, Nicholas (1980). The Boys from Liverpool: John, Paul, George, and Ringo. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 0-416-30661-6. Seaman, Frederic (1991). The Last Days of John Lennon. Birch Lane Press. ISBN 1-55972-084-0. Shapiro, Marc (2002). Behind Sad Eyes: The Life of George Harrison. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0-312-30993-7. Sharp, Ken (2011). Starting Over: The Making of John Lennon and Yoko Ono's Double Fantasy. MTV Books. ISBN 978-1439103012. Sheff, David; Golson, G. Barry (editor) (1981). The Playboy Interviews with John Lennon & Yoko Ono. Playboy Press. ISBN 0-87223-705-2. {{cite book}}: |first2= has generic name (help) Schneider, Matthew (2008). The Long and Winding Road from Blake to the Beatles. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1403984890. Sounes, Howard (2010). Fab: An Intimate Life of Paul McCartney. Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-306-81783-0. Spignesi, Stephen J.; Lewis, Michael (2009). 100 Best Beatles Songs: A Passionate Fan's Guide. Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers. ISBN 978-1579128425. Spitz, Bob (2005). The Beatles: The Biography. Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 978-0-316-80352-6. Spitz, Bob (2007). Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!: The Beatles, Beatlemania, and the Music that Changed the World. Little, Brown Books for Young Readers. ISBN 978-0316115551. Spizer, Bruce (2005). The Beatles Solo on Apple Records. 498 Productions, LLC. ISBN 978-0966264951. Stark, Steven D. (2006). Meet the Beatles: A Cultural History of the Band That Shook Youth, Gender, and the World. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-000893-2. Taylor, Derek (1987). It Was Twenty Years Ago Today. Fireside. ISBN 978-0671642013. Tillery, Gary (2010). The Cynical Idealist: A Spiritual Biography of John Lennon. Quest Books. ISBN 978-0-8356-0875-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |rer= ignored (help) Turner, Steve (15 April 2006). The Gospel according to the Beatles. Westminster John Knox. ISBN 978-0-664-22983-2. Turner, Steve (2005). A Hard Day's Write: The Stories Behind Every Beatles Song (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Paperbacks. ISBN 0-06-084409-4. Unterberger, Richie (2006). The unreleased Beatles: music & film. Hal Leonard. ISBN 978-0-87930-892-6. Unterberger, Richie (2002). Turn! Turn! Turn!: The '60s Folk-rock Revolution. Backbeat Books. ISBN 0-87930-703-X. Urish, Ben; Bielen, Ken (2007). The Words and Music of John Lennon. Praeger. ISBN 978-0275991807. Wenner, Jann; George-Warren, Holly (editor) (2000). Lennon Remembers. Verso. ISBN 1-85984-600-9. {{cite book}}: |first2= has generic name (help) Wentzel, Jim (2001). The Beatles. Rosen Central. ISBN 978-0823935260. Wiener, Jon (1991). Come Together. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-06131-8. Wimmer, Teresa (2008). The Beatles: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Creative Co. ISBN 978-1583416518. Winn, John C. (2008). Way Beyond Compare: The Beatles' Recorded Legacy, Volume One, 1957–1965. New York: Three Rivers Press. ISBN 978-0-307-45157-6. Winn, John C. (2009). That Magic Feeling: The Beatles' Recorded Legacy, Volume Two, 1966–1970. New York: Three Rivers Press. ISBN 978-0-307-45239-9. Womack, Kenneth; Davis, Todd, eds. (2006). Reading the Beatles: Cultural Studies, Literary Criticism, And the Fab Four. State University of New York Press. ISBN 978-0791467169. Womack, Kenneth (2009). The Cambridge Companion to the Beatles. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521689762. Womack, Kenneth (2007). Long and Winding Roads: The Evolving Artistry of the Beatles. London & New York: Continuum. ISBN 978-0-8264-1746-6. Zeisler, Andi (2008). Feminism and Pop Culture: Seal Studies. Seal Press. ISBN 978-1580052375.

Click on "show" (far right) to uncollapse a list of 100 high-quality printed secondary sources currently used to source Wikipedia articles which use a lower-case definite article mid-sentence throughout.

Ashcroft, Linda (1997). Wild Child: Life with Jim Morrison. Hodder & Stoughton. ISBN 978-0-340-68498-6. Auslander, Philip (2006). Performing Glam Rock: Gender and Theatricality in Popular Music. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0472068685. Bayles, Martha (1994). Hole in Our Soul: Loss of Beauty and Meaning in American Popular Music. New York: Free Press. ISBN 0-02-901962-1. Bellman, Jonathan. (1997). The Exotic In Western Music. Northeastern Publishing. p. 351. ISBN 1-55553-319-1. Blake, Mark (2008). Comfortably Numb—The Inside Story of Pink Floyd. Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-306-81752-6. Bockris, Victor (1992). Keith Richards – The Biography. Poseidon Press. ISBN 0-671-70061-8. Bogdanov, Vladimir; Woodstra, Chris; Erlewine, Stephen Thomas, eds. (2001). All Music Guide: The Definitive Guide To Popular Music, 4th Edition. Backbeat Books. ISBN 978-0879306274. Booth, Stanley (2000). The True Adventures of The Rolling Stones (2nd edition). A Capella Books. ISBN 1-55652-400-5. Booth, Stanley (1995). Keith: Standing in the Shadows. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0-312-11841-4. Bronson, Fred (1992). Weiler, Fred (ed.). The Billboard Book of Number One Hits (3rd revised ed.). Billboard Books. ISBN 978-0-8230-8298-8. Brown, Pat (2001). The Guide to United States Popular Culture. Minneapolis, MN: Popular Press. ISBN 0-87972-821-3. Brunning, Bob (1986). Blues: The British Connection. Helter Skelter. ISBN 1-900924-41-2. Bukszpan, Daniel (2003). The Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal. New York, NY: Barnes & Noble. ISBN 0-7607-4218-9. Carlin, Peter Ames (2006). Catch a Wave: The Rise, Fall, & Redemption of the Beach Boys' Brian Wilson. Rodale Books (New York). ISBN 978-1-59486-320-2. Chatterton, Mark (2001). U2: The Complete Encyclopedia. London: Firefly Publishing. ISBN 0-946719-41-1. Cope, Andrew L. (2010). Black Sabbath and the Rise of Heavy Metal Music. Aldershot: Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-6881-7. Creswell, Toby (2006). 1001 Songs: The Great Songs of All Time and the Artists, Stories and Secrets Behind Them. Da Capo Press. ISBN 1-56025-915-9. Davis, Stephen (2005). Jim Morrsion: Life, Death, Legend. New York: Gotham Books. ISBN 978-1-59240-099-7. Davis, Erik (2005). Led Zeppelin IV. New York, NY: Continuum. ISBN 0-8264-1658-6. Davis, Stephen (1985). Hammer of the Gods: The Led Zeppelin Saga. London: Pan. ISBN 0-330-34287-8. Dean, Maury (2003). Rock 'n' Roll Gold Rush: A Singles Un-Cyclopedia. Algora Publishing. ISBN 0-87586-207-1. Dimartino, Dave (1994). Singer-Songwriters: Pop Music's Performer-Composers, from A to Zevon. Billboard Books. ISBN 0-8230-7629-6. Densmore, John (1990). Riders on the Storm: My Life with Jim Morrison and the Doors. Delacorte Press. ISBN 978-0-385-30033-9. DeRogatis (2003). Turn On Your Mind: Four Decades of Great Psychedelic Rock. Hal Leonard. ISBN 0-634-05548-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |fisrt= ignored (help) DeRogatis, Jim. Da Capo Press. ISBN 0-306-81271-1. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Text "title-Milk it!: collected musings on the alternative music explosion of the 90s" ignored (help) di Perna, Alan (2002). "Mysterious Ways". In Kitts, Jeff; Tolinski, Brad (eds.). Guitar World Presents: Pink Floyd. Hal Leonard. ISBN 978-0-7546-6708-7. Einarson, John (2005). Mr. Tambourine Man: The Life and Legacy of the Byrds' Gene Clark. Backbeat Books. ISBN 0-87930-793-5. Fast, Susan (2001). In the Houses of the Holy: Led Zeppelin and the Power of Rock Music. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-514723-5. Fast, Susan (2011). Led Zeppelin (British Rock Group). London: Encyclopædia Britannica. ISBN 0-19-514723-5. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) Fitch, Vernon (2005). The Pink Floyd Encyclopedia (Third ed.). Collector's Guide Publishing. ISBN 978-1-894959-24-7. Fitch, Vernon (2001). Pink Floyd: The Press Reports 1966–1983. Collector's Guide Publishing Inc. ISBN 978-1-896522-72-2. Flanagan, Bill (1995). U2 at the End of the World. New York: Delacorte Press. ISBN 0-385-31154-0. Flippo, Chet (1985). On the Road With the Rolling Stones. Doubleday/Dolphin. ISBN 0-385-19374-2. Forget, Thomas (2003). The Rolling Stones. Rosen Central. ISBN 0-8239-3644-9. Fyfe, Andy (2003). When the Levee Breaks: The Making of Led Zeppelin IV. Chicago, IL: Chicago Review Press. ISBN 1-55652-508-7. George-Warren, Holly, ed. (2001). The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll (2005 revised and updated ed.). Fireside. ISBN 978-0-7432-9201-6. Greenfield, Robert (1981). The Rolling Stone Interviews – Keith Richards. New York: St. Martin's Press/Rolling Stone Press. ISBN 0-312-68954-3. Greenfield, Robert (1974). S.T.P.: A Journey Through America with the Rolling Stones. {{cite book}}: Text "ISBN 0-306-81199-5" ignored (help) Grossman, Perry (2002). "Alternative rock". St. James Encyclopedia of Pop Culture 2002. Gale Group. ISBN 1-55862-400-7. Gulla, Bob (2001). Guitar Gods: The 25 Players Who Made Rock History. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-313-35806-0. Harris, John (2005). The Dark Side of the Moon (First Hardcover ed.). Da Capo. ISBN 978-0-306-81342-9. Heckstall-Smith, Dick (2004). The safest place in the world: A personal history of British rhythm and blues. Clear Books. ISBN 0-7043-2696-5. Hector, James (1995). The complete guide to the music of the Rolling Stones. London: Omnibus. ISBN 0-7119-4303-6. Hoffmann, Frank (2004). Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound (2nd ed.). Routledge. ISBN 0-415-93835-X. Hopkins, Jerry; Sugerman, Danny (1980). No One Here Gets Out Alive. New York: Warner Books. ISBN 978-0-446-97133-1. Huxley, Martin (1996). AC/DC: The World's Heaviest Rock. Lightning Source Inc. ISBN 0-312-30220-7. Jagger, Mick (2003). According to he Rolling Stones. Chronicle Books. ISBN 0-8118-4060-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Kitts, Jeff; Tolinski, Brad, eds. (2002). Guitar World Presents: Pink Floyd. Hal Leonard. ISBN 978-0-7546-6708-7. Kitts, Thomas M. (2007). Ray Davies: Not Like Everybody Else. Routledge. ISBN 978-0415977685. Kitts, Jeff. (2002). Guitar World Presents the 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time. Hal Leonard. ISBN 0-634-04619-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Kubernik, Harvey (2006). Hollywood Shack Job: Rock Music in Film and on Your Screen. University of New Mexico Press. ISBN 0-8263-3542-X. Lambert, Philip (2007). Inside the Music of Brian Wilson: the songs, sounds and influences of the Beach Boys' founding genius. Continuum. ISBN 0826418767. Lazar, Zachary (2008). Sway. Little Brown. ISBN 0-316-11309-3. Luft, Eric V. D. (2009). Die at the Right Time!: A Subjective Cultural History of the American Sixties. Gegensatz Press. ISBN 0-9655179-2-6. Manning, Toby (2006). The Rough Guide to Pink Floyd (First ed.). Rough Guides. ISBN 978-1-84353-575-1. Manzarek, Ray (1998). Light My Fire: My Life With The Doors. New York: Putnam. ISBN 978-0-399-14399-1. Marcus, Greil, ed. (2007). Stranded: Rock and Roll for a Desert Island. Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0306815324. Marcus, Greil (1997). The Dustbin Of History. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-21858-2. Mason, Nick (2005) [2004]. Dodd, Philip (ed.). Inside Out – A Personal History of Pink Floyd (Paperback ed.). Phoenix. ISBN 978-0-7538-1906-7. Menck, Ric (2007). The Notorious Byrd Brothers (33⅓ series). Continuum Books. ISBN 0-8264-1717-5. Miller, Jim (1980). The Rolling Stone illustrated history of rock & roll : the definitive history of the most important artists and their music. New York: Random House. ISBN 0-679-73728-6. Oldham, Andrew Loog (2000). Stoned. St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 0-312-27094-1. Olsen, Brad (2007). Sacred Places Europe: 108 Destinations. San Francisco: CCC Publishing. ISBN 978-1-888729-12-2. Palmer, Robert (1995). Rock & Roll: An Unruly History. Harmony. ISBN 0-517-70050-6. Paytress, Mark (2003). Rolling Stones : off the record. London ; New York: Omnibus. ISBN 0-7119-8869-2. Phelge, James (2000). Nankering with the Stones. ISBN 1-55652-373-4. Povey, Glenn (2008) [2007]. Echoes: The Complete History of Pink Floyd. Mind Head Publishing. ISBN 978-0-9554624-1-2. Povey, Glen; Russell, Ian (1997). Pink Floyd: in the flesh, the complete performance history (1st US paperback ed.). St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-0-9554624-0-5. Prown, Pete; Newquist, H. P.; Eiche, Jon F. (1997). Legends of Rock Guitar: The Essential Reference of Rock's Greatest Guitarists. Milwaukee, WI: H.Leonard. ISBN 0-7935-4042-9. Reisch, George A, ed. (2007). Pink Floyd and Philosophy: Careful with that Axiom, Eugene!. Open Court. ISBN 978-0-8126-9636-3. Reynolds, Simon (2006). Rip It Up and Start Again: Postpunk 1978–1984. New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-303672-6. Richards, Keith (2010). Life. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 978-0-297-85439-5. Roberts, David, ed. (2005). British Hit Singles & Albums (18 ed.). Guinness World Records Limited. ISBN 978-1-904994-00-8. Rielly, Edward J. (2003). The 1960s. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 0-313-31261-3. Rogan, Johnny (1998). The Byrds: Timeless Flight Revisited. Rogan House. ISBN 0-9529540-1-X. Rounds, Dwight (2007). The Year the Music Died: 1964–1972. Bridgeway Books. ISBN 1-933538-69-4. Rosen, Craig (1996). Lukas, Paul (ed.). The Billboard Book of Number One Albums. ISBN 978-0-8230-7586-7. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) Sanchez, Tony (1996). Up and down with the Rolling Stones. New York: Da Capo. ISBN 0-306-80711-4. Sandford, Christopher (2012). The Rolling Stones. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0857201034. Schaffner, Nicholas (1991). Saucerful of Secrets (First ed.). Sidgwick & Jackson. ISBN 978-0-283-06127-1. Scarfe, Gerald (2010). The Making of Pink Floyd: The Wall (1st US paperback ed.). Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-306-81997-1. Schumacher, Michael (2003). Crossroads: The Life and Music of Eric Clapton. Citadel Press. ISBN 0-8065-2466-9. Simmons, Sylvie (December 1999). "Pink Floyd: The Making of The Wall". Mojo Magazine. 73. Emap Metro. Smith, Chris (2009). 101 Albums That Changed Popular Music. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-537371-5. Spitz, Marc (2011). Jagger: Rebel, Rock Star, Rambler, Rogue. Gotham Books. ISBN 978-1-59240-655-5. Straw, Will (1990). Simon Frith and Andrew Goodwin, eds (ed.). On Record: Rock, Pop and the Written Word. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-05306-4. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help) Thompson, Dave (2004). Smoke on the Water: The Deep Purple Story. Toronto, Ontario: ECW Press. ISBN 1-55022-618-5. Unterberger, Richie (2002). Turn! Turn! Turn!: The '60s Folk-Rock Revolution. Backbeat Books. ISBN 0-87930-703-X. Unterberger, Richie (2003). Eight Miles High: Folk-Rock's Flight from Haight-Ashbury to Woodstock. Backbeat Books. ISBN 0-87930-743-9. Unterberger, Richie. (1999). Music USA: The Rough Guide. Rough Guides. ISBN 1-85828-421-X. Wadhams, Wayne. (2001). Inside the Hits: The Seduction of a Rock and Roll Generation. Berklee Press. ISBN 0-634-01430-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Waksman, Steve (2001). Instruments of Desire: the Electric Guitar and the Shaping of Musical Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-00547-3. Waksman, Steve (2009). This Ain't the Summer of Love: Conflict and Crossover in Heavy Metal and Punk. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-25310-0. Wall, Mick (2009). When Giants Walked the Earth: A Biography of Led Zeppelin. London: Orion. ISBN 978-1-4091-0319-6. Walser, Robert (1993). Running with the Devil: Power, Gender, and Madness in Heavy Metal Music. New York, NY: Wesleyan University Press. ISBN 0-8195-6260-2. Watkinson, Mike; Anderson, Pete (2001). Crazy Diamond: Syd Barrett & the Dawn of Pink Floyd (First ed.). Omnibus Press. ISBN 978-0-7119-2397-3. Watts, Michael (1996) [1971]. "Pink's muddled Meddle". In MacDonald, Bruno (ed.). Pink Floyd: through the eyes of ... the band, its fans, friends, and foes. Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-306-80780-0. Weisbard, Eric (2004). This Is Pop: In Search of the Elusive at Experience Music Project. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674013216. Welch, Chris (1994). Led Zeppelin. London: Orion. ISBN 1-85797-930-3. Wyman, Bill (2002). Rolling With the Stones. DK Publishing. ISBN 0-7894-9998-3. Wyman, Bill. (1990). Stone Alone: The Story of a Rock 'n' Roll Band. Da Capo Press. ISBN 0-670-82894-7. Yorke, Ritchie (1993). Led Zeppelin: The Definitive Biography. Novato, CA: Underwood–Miller. ISBN 0-88733-177-7.

Click on "show" (far right) to uncollapse a list of 60 high-quality primary sources to support a lower-case definite article mid-sentence throughout.

From the Beatles' official website: Please Please Me With The Beatles A Hard Day's Night Beatles For Sale the White Album Yellow Submarine The official John Lennon website, hosted by EMI Group Limited. A hand-written letter by Lennon signed by all four on which Lennon wrote "the Beatles". A piece of paper signed by all four on which Paul McCartney wrote "the Beatles". A piece of hotel stationary using "the Beatles" in McCartney's hand, signed by all four. A piece of bedding signed by all four on which Harrison signed: "the Beatles". A piece of paper signed "the Beatles" in McCartney's hand, signed by all four, dated 7 February 1963. An autograph album page signed "the Beatles" in McCartney's hand, 18 August 1963. A 1963 letter signed "the Beatles" in McCartney's hand, also signed by the other three. A signed napkin (1963) and an album cover (1964) in McCartney's hand using "the Beatles". A postcard signed by all four using "the", 7 February 1964. A a piece of paper dated 1964 signed by all four, Lennon wrote: "the Beatles". A letter dated 1969, signed by Lennon, Harrison and Starr which uses a lower-case definite article. A hand-written letter by Lennon, dated March 1970, from page 351 of the Beatles Anthology (2000), which uses a lower-case definite article both times the band is mentioned in running prose. A hand-written letter by McCartney, dated April 1970, from page 352 of the Beatles Anthology (2000), which uses a lower-case definite article when using the band's name in running prose. The "Ticket to Ride"/"Yes it Is" 45. The "I Feel Fine"/She's A Woman" 45. The "Strawberry Fields Forever"/"Penny Lane" 45 which uses a lower-case definite article. The "We Can Work It Out"/"Day Tripper" 45 which uses a lower-case definite article. The "Paperback Writer"/"Rain" 45 which uses a lower-case definite article. The "Yellow Submarine" EP which uses a lower-case definite article. The Beatles Singles Badge Collection which uses a lower-case defintite article. The "Yesterday"/"I Should Have Known Better" single which uses a lower-case definite article. The Rock n Roll Music LP which uses "the". Many examples from the historical record omit "the" altogether, suggesting it is not integral enough to be capitalised: Beatles For Sale and the two EP's of the same name (the original LP liner notes written by Derek Taylor use "the Beatles" thoughout) Beatles '65 Beatles VI The Sgt. Pepper cover says "Beatles" not "the Beatles". A piece of paper autographed by all four using "Beatles", 1963. A piece of paper signed by all four on which McCartney wrote "Beatles". This website contains 9 examples that show signatures by all four with "Beatles". Another example signed by all four using "Beatles". An autographed album page containing the signatures of all four Beatles on which Harrison wrote "Beatles". In autograph book signed by all four, McCartney wrote "Beatles", 1963. A page from an autograph book signed by all four using "Beatles", 1965. Signed by all four with Ringo Starr adding "Beatles", April 1963. A piece of paper signed "Beatles" by McCartney also signed by Starr. A signed piece of paper using "Beatles". A "Helter Skelter" single that omits "the", using only "Beatles" on the label. The Beatles Forever EP which uses only "Beatles". The Magical Mystery Tour EP which uses only "Beatles". The "All Together Now"/"Hey Bulldog" single. The "Lady Madonna"/"Inner Light" single which uses "Beatles". The back cover of Abbey Road which uses "Beatles". A flyer which uses only "Beatles". And the John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band album has Lennon singing "I don't believe in Beatles". Brian Epstein's book, both of George Martin's books, Geoff Emerick's book, Derek Taylor's book, Peter Brown's book, George Harrison's book, Paul McCartney's book and Coleman's bios on John Lennon all use a lower-case definite article mid-sentence throughout.

Usage data: The following is from a corpus test using one representative corpus of written British English (the BNC) and one of American English (COCA). The data shows that 89.5% of American sources use a lower-case definite article, and 55% of British sources use a lower-case definite article.

	British BNC		American COCA
Lowercase article	126		564
Uppercase article	103		66
Total	229		630
Percent lower-case	55%		89.5%

Despite the citation of "The Tempest", "The Hobbit", "The Avengers", "The Guardian", "The Hague", etc." in the "Upper-case" section below, these examples are not relevant to this case. Since we are discussing band names and those articles are not, this is an example of the sorts of arguments WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aims to prevent. In addition, every one of the examples of literary works given is governed by grammatical and MoS guidelines separate entirely from the issue of band names. In particular, "most titles of artistic works" would seem to be the relevant clause of the MoS. For The Hague, the MoS is also very helpful when it gives the specific example, "public transport in The Hague". These are very specific exceptions, which have very specific and long-established rationales in the English language. They are defined by universally accepted standards of grammar that have nothing at all to do with the present discussion.

Likewise, capitalisation of The Guardian is implicitly endorsed by Wikipedia's Manual of Style when it repeatedly uses the full-form The New York Times, as well as the titles of other periodicals, in several different locations in running text. (NB: This is actually a matter of some disagreement among style guides: the APA prefers a capitalized "The" in running text, while the Chicago Manual of Style (15th ed.) recommends treating "the" as not a part of the title, and neither capitalising it nor italicising it.) Regardless, the capitalisation of titles of publications is in no way comparable to that of band names.

Evidence for upper-case

• "The Beatles" is a registered trade mark of Apple Corps Ltd. and the MoS says to capitalize trademarks in general.

High-quality primary sources that support an upper-case definite article mid-sentence include:

• Official Beatles web site
• Official Ringo Starr web site
• Official Pete Best web site
• Official George Martin Music web site
• Official Phil Spector web site
• Official Michael Lindsay-Hogg web site
• The Beatles Anthology (Omnibus Press), "editorial note" at beginning of volume.
• EMI Group Limited, example: Timeline
• A letter dated 18 April 1969, signed by Lennon, Harrison and Starr (Richard Starkey) which uses an upper-case definite article mid-sentence when referring to "The Beatles" as a corporate entity.
• A letter dated 14 June 1966 signed by Ron Tepper, Manager, Press & Information Services, Capitol Records, recalling The Beatles "Yesterday And Today" butcher cover. Text uses uppercase "The" mid-sentence.
• A letter dated 14 June 1967 signed by Ron Tepper, Manager, Press & Information Services, Capitol Records, withdrawing the album "The Beatles vs. The Beach Boys". Text uses uppercase "The" mid-sentence.
• A 1962 letter signed by Miss R. Brown, Secretary, The Beatles Fan Club.
• Beatles Fan Club Newsletter, September 1963 -- text uses uppercase "The" mid-sentence.
• Album cover for LP issue of "With The Beatles", Parlophone PMC 1206 -- signed by all four Beatles, text consistently uses uppercase "The" mid-sentence.
• Back cover of "A Hard Day's Night", Parlophone PMC 1230 -- text consistently uses uppercase "The" mid-sentence.
• Back cover of "Extracts from the album 'A Hard Day's Night'", 45 extended play, Parlophone GEP 8924 -- text uses uppercase "The" mid-sentence.
• Back cover of "With The Beatles" extended play -- EMI Australia
• Back cover of "Twist and Shout", 45 extended play, Australian relase, Parlophone GEPO 8882 - text uses uppercase "The" mid-sentence.
• Back cover of "The Beatles (No. 1) 45 extended play, EMI GEP 8883 -- text consistently uses uppercase "The" mid-sentence.
• Back cover of "Please Please Me", Parlophone PMC 1202 - text consistently uses uppercase "The" mid-sentence.
• Back cover of "Never Mind The Tremeloes...Here's The Beatles" -- 1962 audition for Decca records -- 5 out of 6 mid-sentence references use uppercase "The".
• Web site for Beatles Autographs /Frank Caiazzo -- Frank Caiazzo is widely recognized as the world's premier authenticator of Beatles signatures.
• Letter dated 18 September 2011 by Frank Caiazzo authenticating signatures on "Meet The Beatles" album cover -- text consistently uses uppercase "The" mid-sentence.

Use with other bands

• There are many groups named "The _________". The resolution of this mediation could potentially affect usage in articles for all such bands. A rough sampling of WP articles on British Invasion bands contemporaneous with "the/The Beatles" reveals considerable inconsistency. Many articles have mixed usages, with both "the" and "The" used mid sentence, in an apparently indiscriminate way: e.g. The Troggs, The Dave Clark Five, The Moody Blues, The Searchers, The Animals. A number of articles have some mixture, but tend predominantly towards lower-case "t" in mid-sentence: e.g. The Yardbirds. One article is pretty consistent with lower case "t": The Rolling Stones.

Where there is consistency throughout a given article, however, the tendency is to use upper-case "T": The Kinks, The Hollies, The Zombies, The Who (although this might be a special case, sui generis), The Fortunes. The same is true for American groups of the period: The Doors, The Buckinghams, etc. -- although, once again, most articles have a mixture of usages, more or less willy-nilly. The upshot is that there appears to be an existing unacknowledged, and perhaps unconscious, practical consensus slightly favoring capital "T". Depending on the outcome of the mediation, if an effort is made to standardize across WP through explicit guidance in the MoS, there will probably be more cleanup work in shifting capital "T" to lower-case "t". That said, there will be a lot of effort in either direction.

• Upper-case is the standard for a wide variety of articles. Some examples:
  • Literary works: The Tempest, The Hobbit, The Tell-Tale Heart, The Scarlet Letter, The Sun Also Rises.
  • Films: The Godfather, The Avengers, The Dark Knight, The Departed, The Social Network.
  • Albums: The Beatles, The Wall, The Black Album.
  • Paintings: The Last Supper, The Storm on the Sea of Galilee, The Last Judgment.
• Because of this, we're left with the possibility for awkward sentences such as "In November 1968, the Beatles released their eponymous album The Beatles, also known as The White Album." Or "At the end of 2010's, The Social Network the Beatles' song Baby, You're a Rich Man played over the ending credits. And while some style guides might differentiate between other band names and other names, this remains a matter of style and not substance and thus we can determine our own style.

An incalculable number of high-quality printed secondary sources used to source Wikipedia articles related to The Beatles use an upper-case definite article mid-sentence. Printed sources tend significantly toward an upper-case "The" in mid-sentence, and there is an existing practical consensus strongly favouring an upper-case definite article. Wikipedia should be consistent with a global consensus in published books dealing with The Beatles, including:

Click on "show" (far right) to uncollapse a sample list of over 30 high-quality WP:RSs currently used to source Beatles articles on Wikipedia that use an upper-case definite article mid-sentence

The Beatles: Music Revolutionaries, by Jeremy Roberts (USA Today). The Rough Guide to The Beatles, by Chris Ingham. Revolution in the Head: The Beatles' Records and the Sixties, by Ian MacDonald (Chicago Review Press). The Beatles Complete Chord Songbook (Hal Leonard Corporation) Paul McCartney - Bass Master - Playing the Great Beatles Basslines, by Tony Bacon and Gareth Morgan Beatles Gear: All the Fab Four's Instruments from Stage to Studio by Andy Babiuk George Harrison: Living in the Material World, by Olivia Harrison and Mark Holborn I'm with the Band: Confessions of a Groupie, by Pamela Des Barres. Ringo Starr: Straight Man or Joker, by Alan Clayson. Abbey Road to Ziggy Stardust: Off-the-record with The Beatles, Bowie, Elton, and so much more, by Ken Scott. The Beatles in Hamburg, by Ian Inglis. Read the Beatles: Classic and New Writings on the Beatles, Their Legacy, and Why They Still Matter, by June Skinner Sawyers Get Back: The Unauthorized Chronicle of The Beatles' " Let It Be" Disaster, by Doug Sulpy and Ray Schweighardt The Longest Cocktail Party: An Insider's Diary of The Beatles, Their Million-Dollar 'Apple' Empire and Its Wild Rise and Fall, by Richard DiLello The Beatles on Film: Analysis of Movies, Documentaries, Spoofs and Cartoons, by Roland Reiter The Beatles Off the Record, by Keith Badman The Beatles Diary, Vol. 1: The Beatles Years, by Barry Miles. The Beatles Diary, Volume 2 : After the Break-Up, 1970-2001, by Barry Miles and Keith Badman Beatlemania!: The Real Story of The Beatles UK Tours, by Martin Creasy. The Beatles After the Break-Up (In Their Own Words), by David Bennahum. Who Could Ask for More?: Reclaiming The Beatles, by Chris Gregory. The Beatles: The Music And The Myth, by Peter Doggett and Patrick Humphries. Northern Songs: The True Story of The Beatles Song Publishing Empire, by Brian Southall. The Making of The Beatles' Magical Mystery Tour, by Tony Barrow. The Beatles: A Diary: An Intimate Day by Day History The Songwriting Secrets of The " Beatles ", by Dominic Pedler. Concert for George Official Web Site The Lennon Companion, by Elizabeth Thomson and David Gutman. John, Paul, George, Ringo and Me: The Real Beatles Story, by Tony Barrow. The Beatles Bible web site Fab Gear: The Beatles and Fashion, by Paolo Hewitt Where's Eric: The Eric Clapton Fan Club Magazine

Bands whose names begin with the definite article tend predominantly toward an upper-case "The" in mid-sentence, and there is an existing practical consensus strongly favouring an upper-case definite article. Wikipedia should be consistent with the overwhelming consensus as represented in the official web sites of such bands, including:

---

Usage data: When considering usage for a select sampling of bands contemporary with The Beatles, the following is from a corpus test using (the British National Corpus (BNC). The data shows that, for the selected bands, the great majority of British sources use an upper-case definite article in mid-sentence.

	Uppercase ”The”		Total Number		% Uppercase
The Byrds	15		19		79%
The Yardbirds	6		6		100%
The Small Faces	8		11		73%
The Moody Blues	6		8		75%
The Troggs	3		3		100%

References

Poll (!vote here)

Notes

• Please sign in the appropriate section below to indicate your preference for the lowercase or uppercase styles described above.
• Please refrain from directly commenting on other people's !votes. There is a separate sub-section below for discussion, and comments should be made there, rather than in the poll sub-sections.
• This poll is relevant only to running-prose/mid-sentence band name usage as a noun. It will not affect capitalisation when beginning a sentence with the band name.

Support lower-case style mid-sentence (...the Beatles...)

1. Wikipedia should follow the vast majority (80%+) of secondary third-party sources that tend predominately toward lower-case. All known style guides suggest lower-case; "Lowercasing 'the' in every proper name also produces a consistent look—a look that, moreover, conforms to normal English usage." Absent a compelling reason to ignore the advice from our in-house and numerous external style guides, we should follow standard English text formatting.~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
2. The MoS says we should avoid unnecessary capitals, and using one for "The" mid-sentence looks obtrusive and amateurish. Rothorpe (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
3. As above. Lukobe (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
4. It just seems more proper, to me, in this format. Mlpearc (powwow) 04:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
5. My reasons for !voting this way include the entirety of the lower-case evidence. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
6. This seems an obvious choice to me. Peppy Fazoo (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
7. Per Wikipedia MOS and every other widely used MOS. Piriczki (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
8. Chicago Manual of Style is clear on the issue; the Beatles are used specifically as an example of how to use lower case "the" for a band name in running prose. Other manuals of style concur. Wikipedia should not try to reinvent the wheel. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
9. Agree with above. Fabulinus 01:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
10. We should use standard English. Most of the secondary sources that support uppercase are web sites designed to promote and aggrandize the Beatles. Unlike, say, newspapers, they are likely to deliberately use incorrect English to support their goal. As for literary works, like The Hobbit, "The Highwayman," etc, those are set aside from the body text with italics and quotation marks, and "the Beatles" is (usually) not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
11. Agree. Any other unique, proper named object would use "the" in running prose. (e.g. "We are going to the Eiffle Tower and then the Louvre while in Paris). --MASEM (t) 05:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
12. The evidence provided in favor of the lower-case is overwhelming, especially from the various usage guides. Evidence in favor of the upper-case is scant and mostly of little relevance--this issue concerns specific application of a general usage question for band names. As a general usage question, the evidence of primary sources is not relevant. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
13. Per Wikipedia MOS which should be good enough reasoning. However, a substantial number of examples from various sources indicate that standard usage is the small 't'. Jusdafax 19:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
14. Why not abide by the wikipedia MOS and all others? This is a no-brainer people.Littledreamer78 (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
15. Wikipedia guidelines are put in place to stop disruptive arguments such as have been going on regarding this issue for some years. It doesn't really matter if one personally agrees with the guideline - in cases of dispute the guideline should be followed. If one feels that the guideline is wrong, then steps should be taken to get consensus to amend the guideline rather than to continue the dispute. The evidence above for using lower case style is quite compelling and confirms that Wikipedia's guidelines are appropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 06:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
16. per common usage – lowercase is overwhelmingly predominant in American English, and also the majority usage (though not quite as overwhelmingly) in British English. Also in keeping with general regularities of English grammar regarding names that contain articles, cf. Quirk et al., Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, p. 294–297. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
17. There are bands where the 'the' is an integral part of their name (The Who, The Doors, The The) and I would support the capitalization but not in this case. J04n(talk page) 14:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
18. The sources do not offer us any decisive guidance on what to do. It's easy to find sources supporting either position. So the right thing to do is just follow wikipedia's style guide. Abhayakara (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
19. We should follow the Manual of Style unless there is an overwhelming reason to disregard it. There are numerous sources for both the capitalized and lowercase versions, so no such reason exists. People supporting capitalization say "the" is part of the band name and should be capitalized, but with no proof. Band names, being names of groups of people, are more analogous to companies and organizations than to titles of works and should generally be treated as such. Capitalizing "the" is really indicative of a more capital-prone style, i.e., one that would see "State" capitalized in reference to a particular state (e.g., Marsha lives in Illinois. She arrived in the State in 2001.). But that is not the style Wikipedia uses. Rather, its style, the Chicago Manual of Style, tends toward lowercase. Even so, where a strong internal preference exists to the contrary, such as for "The Ohio State University", we follow it. That simply doesn't exist here. Even the official Beatles site (used above as support for the capitalized version) uses the uncapitalized version as well.[1] The utter lack of a consistent usage contrary to the Manual of Style means we should not make an exception. -Rrius (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
20. Rrius sums it up very well. As there is no firm consensus among the band's own usage, sources discussing the band, or editors working in the area, we default to using our own Manual of Style. We favour a capitals-light style, and we should therefore not capitalise the definite article in this band's name, unless it forms the start of a sentence. --John (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
21. Given the lack of consensus, to capitalize mid-sentence would be a form of editorializing, which Wikipedia should avoid. —siroχo 05:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
22. "Rare footage of a Beatles concert...is being screened" not "Rare footage of a The Beatles concert... is being screened" but you would say or write "Rare footage of a The The concert is being screened". Plus the Broadcast Music, Inc. give only Beatles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sun Creator (talk • contribs) 13:49, 18 September 2012‎ (UTC)
23. Follow MOS and common usage in secondary sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
24. I find it most persuasive that major newspapers and "Beatles experts" such as Mark Lewisohn and Hunter Davies use lower case, and that major manuals of style as well as Wikipedia's own MOS have specifically considered the issue and endorse lower-case -- in some instances using the Beatles themselves (er, itself?) as an example. In contrast, much of the evidence for capitalization is anecdotal. Neutron (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
25. The alternative is ridiculous and awkward, and potentially leads to nonsenses such as "a The Beatles". Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
26. Although I have great sympathy for the other way of doing things, the lower case "the" is the way we have agreed to write things like this, and I can see no strong argument for making an exception. We are writing for the general reader, who will not know, or probably care, about the various capitalization used historically. Moreover if we were to follow precedent ot that extent we should be forced to capitalize "he" for God, and use (PBUH), etc.... No, Wikipedian editors set the style, based on sound argument, then stick to it unless a good reason is found not to. And we are very relaxed about these things, simply making things cromulent without argument, and often without discussion. Rich Farmbrough, 23:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC).
    
27. Lower-case, in accordance with the sources offered above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
28. I favour a lower-case, per Malleus, per MoS, per common usage. -- Dianna (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
29. As per the vast majority of external style-guides and as per WP's own MoS, I support the use of the lower-case "t" when used in running prose. GFHandel ♬  00:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
30. I'll go with style guides over album covers and websites. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 01:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
31. I support the lower case style, mid sentence, because it avoids the issue of 'the The Beatles'.Obscurasky (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
32. Support per reasonable writing practice of any kind. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
33. I support the lower case style, for mid sentence use. Kierzek (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
34. Per vast majority of sources, but most importantly, most (or all) other style guides. Yes, Wikipedia editors are smart people. But not smarter than all other style guides. --Muhandes (talk) 07:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
35. This style creates much more readable prose. As others have said, there's a reason that nearly every other major publication uses this style. Croctotheface (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
36. Support lower case. By the way, I'm amazed such a fuss is being created about this. Parrot of Doom 08:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
37. Support lower case mid-sentence. In English grammar, titles are italicized with a capitalized 'The' mid-sentence and names are not. In the English language we write The Times and we write the Thames. I hope there is never another vote on this subject. —Prhartcom (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
38. Support lower case mid-sentence. Makes sense. Intothatdarkness 15:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
39. Support lower case mid-sentence per large number of style guides given above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
40. Lower case. There's no consistency so go with normal usage as per style guides. --HighKing (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
41. Lower case. -- ke4roh (talk) 10:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
42. No need for any special exemption here. memphisto 11:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
43. We should follow the MOS. Consistency is a virtue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
44. No brainer.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
45. Trying to think what I'd do....which would be lower case, though I don't have a huge problem with uppercase really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
46. Honestly, I don't care much either way, as long as it is entirely consistent in the article. However, I prefer the argument for a lower-case "the" in mid-sentence. This is Wikipedia and therefore we should follow Wikipedia guidelines such as the MoS, even if they are not policy. Also, I believe it is standard English (although I see how some could disagree) that the "the" should not be capitalized in mid-sentence, despite the proper noun "Beatles". Also, I see both sides citing sources and articles about other bands and media... but to stay specific to the Beatles: in mid-sentence, do we refer to it as "the 5th Beatle" or "The 5th Beatle"? I for one have only seen it as "the 5th Beatle". However, as the argument for upper-case "The" says, this is bigger than just Beatles-related articles, and applies to many other bands' articles; therefore, I think a larger form of debate is required, rather than this one which is specific to one article. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 04:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
47. There are three main points for me. First, lower case follows the MOS. If we want to use upper case, the honest thing to do would be to change the MOS, either in general or to make an exception. Second, there is a reason lower case follows the MOS: It's much closer to standard English than upper case. There may not be an absolute, 100% consensus when you look at actual usage, but there's no doubt lower case is both more common in the real world and more preferred by multiple style guides. Third, all the arguments I've heard in favor of upper case are thoroughly unconvincing from both a practical standpoint and a linguistic standpoint. For example, in standard English "the" is capitalized at the beginning of titles, but the name of a band is not a title. You can see the difference in the sentence "The album The Beatles is my favorite album by the Beatles". Other arguments point to the fact that upper case does appear in the real world every now and then, so it follows that "some people do this, therefore we can/should too". szyslak (t) 15:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
48. It's in the MOS, and I don't see a compelling reason to ignore it. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 21:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
49. Follow usage in reliable sources. This is not even a difficult-to-call case based on that tried-and-true measure. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
50. Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. So says WP:MOSCAPS, and the rest is detail. Where usage varies as it does in the present instance, Wikipedia style prefers lower case unless there is some overriding provision in guidelines or policy. I do not find any such provisions; or if there are some, they themselves run counter to specific provisions that rule the contrary way. In such a situation, have recourse to the general principle (which here yields the usage we find in a majority of sources, affirming the wisdom of the principle): Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. So be it. ☺ Noetica^Tea? 22:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
51. Per MOS general instructions. I also support three year topic bans for the disputants as they have become too fixated on this stupid issue about which very few other than they care yet we all are constantly solicited opinions upon. Please work on something else. —Cupco 22:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
52. All the good reasons are taken. L/C, mid-sentence seems the least problematical solution, taking all uses into consideration. Bielle (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
53. Support low case KitHutch (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
54. Lower case, please. WP avoids unnecessary capping, it says in our guidelines. And who, as a reader, wants road humps in the middle of sentences? Tony (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
55. I also support the use of lower case per the relevant manual of style, as we should avoid unnecessary capitalizations. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
56. Support lowercase per consistent usage in reliable secondary sources. FWIW, the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians also uses "the Beatles" mid-sentence ("Originating in Liverpool, the Beatles evolved from an amateur teenage skiffle group"). Prevents a slip into writing "a The Beatles concert was performed with three original The Beatles on stage." -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
57. Support lower case for consistent application of our MOS and the balance of outside style guides. Don't worry about the cleanup task, whichever way it goes. Capitalization rules aren't even part of the GA criteria. Just do it as and when. --Stfg (talk) 09:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
58. No good reason why the Beatles should be an exception to the rule. Although I feel The The should be an exception for no reason I am able to articulate. SpinningSpark 15:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
59. Uhhhhh? This edit [2] apparently erased my support for lower case. Can we please not do that? Still support. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
60. Per MOS and most common usage, both British and American. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
61. The evidence for lower-case provides compelling counter-arguments against many of the arguments voiced in support of upper-case, external style guides recommend lower-case, and it just plain looks better. Official websites affiliated with Apple Corps possibly use upper-case only for commercial and legal reasons (i.e. because they have trademarked the term "The Beatles"); Wikipedia doesn't have to follow suit. --Mystery Roach (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
62. Support lower case, please. Fylbecatulous talk 12:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
63. Per the MOS, and all of the awkward examples of using a capital "The" cited above. Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
64. Per MOS and common usage, support lowercase. Indrek (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
65. Support lower case per MOS, commonsense and common usage. We are trying to build an encyclopedia, not an accurate reflection of the stylisation for each and every trade mark throughout each any every article - however important. WP needs to follow its own MOS (as do all the known external guides) without amendments.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richhoncho (talk • contribs)
66. Looks nicer.Popcornduff (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
67. (Only on Wikipedia would people care this much about such a minor point...) Anyway, I've read the arguments on each side, and I think that MOS/usage points this way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
68. Since each band member is a Beatle, they are countable, and the name Beatle stands on its own. "The two Beatles I liked most were Ringo and Paul." or "Three Beatles were there: Ringo, John and Paul." Wikipedia does not overcapitalize, nor do we allow honorific titles to prevail, which seems the biggest reason for capitalizing "The". —fudoreaper (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
69. It looks weird to have a capital T in the middle of the sentence; accepting that occasionally a quotation will use it (a marginal call admittedly), or when the article refers to The Beatles (album).Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
70. My instinct would be capitalize it... BUT I follow the Chicago Manual of Style, so if they say lower case, I say lower case. I am curious, however, how we will treat similar non-English band names, such as Los Lobos and Los Fabulousos Cadillacs. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
71. Follow WP:MOS and external style guides, support lowercase. DigitalC (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
72. Support "the", following the major style guides. Barsoomian (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
73. Per MOS and numerous other style manuals, except for direct quotes, but it's not of earth-shattering importance. Consistency is a good thing, yet I can imagine a couple of hypothetical contexts where the uppercase might make more sense, and one or two exceptions wouldn't ruin the article. Rivertorch (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
74. High quality sources and style guides lean toward "the" — we should follow their lead and make it part of our Manual of Style. First Light (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
75. I've done a Google News search see how the news media are referring to this band. [3] Both methods are being used. However, the lower case one seems to be more common, so WP should use the lower case as per WP:commonname-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
76. Per WP:MOS and aesthetics. This creates no ambiguity, and the alternative looks pedantic. --BDD (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
77. I support lower case. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
78. Lower case argument wins hands down - although I don't really feel too strongly either way, personally. Gwladys24 (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
79. As demonstrated above, Wikipedia's Manual of Style prefers lowercase "the", so unless MOS is changed, the lowercase title should be used. Same refers to other articles mentioned above. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
80. Per Harvard, Duke, Cambridge, Oxford, Hart, Butcher, Fowler and the encyclopedia britannica. Weezie ^{Lets chat} 05:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
81. A majority of high quality reliable sources, external style guides and our own in-house style guide all support the use of standard English lowercase 'the' in prose. Further, evidence supports the notion that the Beatles themselves used the lowercase 'the' in writing about their own band. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits› 23:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
82. If even when all known style guides recommend and more than 80% of secondary sources use lowercase "the" we are required to waste huge amounts of time to implement this, then our in-house style guide (the MoS) gives way too much power to amateur editors and fanboys in editing language and spelling, which it does not permit at all in editing content. These amateurs not only make the entire encyclopedia look amateurish and unreliable -- much worse, they disgust and scare off serious editors and professional copyeditors. So, if even in such a clear-cut case as this amateurs can still waste huge amounts of time of large numbers of serious editors, the MoS has to be rephrased using much stronger language. In addition to talking about avoiding unnecessary use of capitalization, the MoS should say that capitalization is only allowed if a large majority of style guides and secondary sources use upper case. In addition, as said above, most of the few secondary sources that use uppercase are websites designed to promote and aggrandize the Beatles (professional fanboys). As for the names of literary works, like The Hobbit, "The Highwayman", etc., these are set aside from the body text with italics or quotation marks, whereas the name "the Beatles" is (usually) not. Even the Beatles themselves used the lowercase 'the' in writing about their own band. WP is full of many articles with capitalization that violates the MoS and standard English usage and many articles that violate other clear-cut policies such as WP:ENGVAR. (For example, many electronics and IT articles, such as the trademark spelling Compact Disc despite the general usage clearly shown in the biggest UK and US dictionaries[4][5][6][7][8]) This nonsense is often aggressively defended by self-declared keepers of these holy grails against people who don't have the energy and time to fight about this for weeks and months on end, even though these people often include professional copyeditors or amateurs citing dictionaries and style guides. --Espoo (talk) 09:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
83. Lowercase "the": John, Paul, George and Ringo have always been referred to individually as being a "Beatle" (George was the quiet Beatle") and collectively as "Beatles" ("Lennon and McCartney were the most prolific Beatles") which is strong support for the position that "Beatles" regularly stands alone without a requisite capitalized "The" as part of the band identification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.152.91 (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC) — 70.123.152.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
84. Capitalizing "The" makes it look like a trademark rather than a band.Slowbuteffective (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
85. Support lower case. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
86. Support lowercase. The evidence for lowercase is overwhelming. DavidK2 (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
87. Mala/lowercase. Profesionalni pisci pokušati postići najviše ugodan i čitljiv tekst poštujući pravila gramatike i odgovarajuće nazive predmeta su pisali o tome. Wikipedija treba koristiti "Beatlese" kada u sredini rečenice i "The Beatles", kada pismenu osim teksta. 193.243.171.241 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC) — 193.243.171.241 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
88. Lower case! Iterator12n ^Talk 03:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
89. Support lower case, so wikipedia looks professional and not amateurish. TheDL (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
90. The Guardian and Observer style guide says: "band names: lowercase "the": e.g. the Beatles, the Killers, the The." 188.116.36.6 (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)— 188.116.36.6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
91. It makes perfect sense to bring wikipedia in line with the majority of external sources. AnotherSkierDude (talk) 09:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
92. Making lower is better for reading. 103.9.151.71 (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC) — [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
93. Support lower-case. Jonathunder (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The above !vote was cast after the poll's conclusion. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Support upper-case style mid-sentence (...The Beatles...)

1. I almost always see the name as "The Beatles". This appears to be the style of that time. As noted, it was common back then to have names starting with "The", so we should respect that word as being part of the band's name. SMP0328. (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
2. Per above. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 01:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
3. Largely because most other band articles use an uppercase 'T' so let's be consistent. And for the record, the article used uppercase when the article was promoted to featured article status in 2009. For the record, I'm okay with the context idea supported below. Hot Stop (Edits) 02:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    • The best solution I heard of was this one: When referring to the plural of persons as four individual "Beatles", use lower case ("Each of the Beatles had different opinions"); when referring to the singular group, use upper case ("Ed Sullivan hosted two shows featuring The Beatles"). I know this choice didn't make the poll, but it seems to be aligned with the upper case faction, so my !vote is here. That said, I'm content with any resolution that ends this craziness. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC) (Wasted Time R struck own vote at 02:26 on 16 September 2012.)
4. Agreed with Wasted Time R. This is not difficult, people! Bands are always "The" whatever, if the definite article is part of their official name ("The Beatles" and "The Doors", but "Smithereens" and "Smashing Pumpkins" and "Electric Light Orchestra"), when referring to the band as an entity. This includes after the name of a bandleader ("Siouxsie and The Banshees"), unless the band have themselves stated they do not prefer it that way (note, for example, that Siouxsie releases have used both capitalizations, so "their album I have uses 'the'" isn't good enough sourcing - rock stars are rarely consistent, and same goes for their labels). It's always lower-case when referring to individuals ("each of the Beatles", "each of the Smithereens", "each of the Banshees"). Thus "a Beatle", never "A Beatle". Except of course at beginning of sentence. Please put this to bed and move on. Stop trying to make this a WP:ENGVAR issue. It isn't one. Stop trying to make it any more complicated that I just laid it out. It isn't. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 18:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC
5. Per Wasted Time R and unsigned above, Hiding T 18:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
6. I also agree with Wasted TimeR that distinguishing between the group and its individual members is easy. It is also easy to maintain this consistency across articles about the many groups that have "The" in their names. This didn't make the poll, indeed, but it was always the best solution to this very minor issue that has been blown out of all proportion. I too am responding here because the other column would seem to ban the mid-sentence use of the capital T completely. Tvoz/talk 18:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
7. Support upper-case:
   • Upper-case makes it clear that it's part of the name of the band, and not just present in the sentence for grammatical purposes.
   • Based on my experience, "the Beatles" looks wrong.
   • I disagree that this is any different than "The Hague" – band names, like those of cities, products, artistic works, and people (e.g. "The Edge") are all proper nouns and deserve to be capitalized in the way that the giver of the name chose.

   —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

8. Support upper-case: I was more or less on the fence when I first became aware of the controversy. Then I looked on the back of my beloved original album covers for "A Hard Days Night" and "With The Beatles." Then I looked at the home page for the official web site. If the band wanted to use The Beatles" way back then and Apple Corps. does the same today, who am I to tell them they're wrong. Jburlinson (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
9. I could care less about this, but I have grown up learning that the first, last, and main words in the title are capitalized. In the support for the lower case version, bands with "the" in the middle of their names are lower cased and this is only due to this fact. Hootie & the Blowfish is my favorite band of of these, and this matches there "Greatest hits" cd case. I know this is not support for the Capitalized option, but this is a counter argument to the lowercase.--intelati/talk 21:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
10. What's the saying about how the less something matters, the more heated the argument - something like that? There's no objective answer either way; The Beatles (caps) is less likely to be misread as not referring to the band, but rather to a person or something else, so it should be used. That's a pretty slim argument, but this is a pretty slim topic. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
11. "The Beatles" is the name for that band and is also a registered trade mark. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
12. Support upper-case when the article is part of the proper noun (The Beatles, The Clash, The Who, etc.). This has long been the practice, and is the MoS for composition titles and other proper nouns which include an article (MOS:CAPS#Capitalization of "The"/MOS:CT). I see no reason why we should treat the names of artists differently than we do the titles of works, since both are proper nouns. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
13. Support per SMcCandlish. — Jon C.^ॐ 14:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
14. Always The Beatles/The Who/The Band/The Rolling Stones for the actual act. Only "the Beatles" or "the Rolling Stones" when referring incidentally to two or more of the band members. From experience, when naming a band, if you decide to include a definite article in the name, there's a reason for it being there − it's part of the band name/identity. And yes, as someone points out above: The Edge, The Hague; also The Last Waltz, The Wall, etc. Also want to add that all the Mojo Beatles specials I've collected use "The".JG66 (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
15. Support upper-case. --Patthedog (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
16. Per SMcClandish's explanation. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 07:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
17. Support upper. Although can't help but think that, with the early sixties behind them, they drifted towards the more psychedelic lower. Maybe it went upper again after The Apple Corps fell apart. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
18. Support upper case for the sake of uniformity and consistency with other band names and per common usage of band names starting with "The" in the 1960s. Chiton (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
19. Support upper case mid-sentence. It is part of their official name and it is how they do it on their official site: http://thebeatles.com/#/news Tearaway (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
20. Support when referring to the band. Not necessary when referring to "a Beatle". Please see the section I started below at "It's a grammatical subtlety" for the gist of my opinion. Huw Powell (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
21. Support upper case as that's what their logo used.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
22. Upper, because their name is "The Beatles", not "the Beatles". Lachlan Foley (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
23. --Michig (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
24. Their name is "The Beatles", not "the Beatles". Hogyn Lleol ★ ^(chat) 09:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
25. Per above. The Wookieepedian (talk) 09:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
26. I agree that "The Beatles" should be used as the name of the band and "a Beatle", "one of the Beatles", "a Beatles album", etc. can be used in reference to something individual. ~ Boomur [talk] 14:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
27. I support upper-case style mid-sentence. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk) 18:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
28. Support. As Hogyn Lleol says above, the band name is "The Beatles", not "the Beatles". —Bruce1ee^talk 07:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
29. seems obvious to me... "the" should be used when referring to the persons in the band ("among the Beatles who stayed longer in India"), and "The" when referring to the band itself. --a self called nowhere (☎) 20:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
30. Support. Should always be capital "T" when talking about bands where the leading article is a part of the band name, a la The Byrds, The Beatles, The Who etc. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
31. Support - Per SMcCandlish and because they are The Beatles. Let's move on. --Seduisant (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
32. Band names should be in title case, as well as album titles and song titles, no matter where they are located within sentences -- Foetusized (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
33. Support upper-case. Their official band name is The Beatles not Beatles. That's it. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
34. Support upper-case. "The" is part of the bands name. It was when I grew up and those things don't change with time.TMCk (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
35. Believe the word "the" is part of the name of the band so I vote for capitalized.Tonyhammond (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
36. Support upper case - It is the band's name and in conformity with most official uses, as well as high-quality RSs. For the jargon usage of individual members etc., non-capitalization is fine.LedRush (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
37. Support -- the is part of the name, so should be treated as such with capitalization. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
38. Support — As THE British band, all non-British !votes should be ignored; per WP:ENGVAR articles with strong national ties should use that country's variation of English, therefore Brits should determine their preferred variation of casing. You wouldn't expect us Brits to enforce whether Americans should be using "the Whitehouse" or "The Whitehouse", the same should apply here. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
39. Support using upper case "T". The bands proper name is "The Beatles" If you're not sure, look at the drum face on the youtube video when they made their first US appearance on Ed Sullivan's show. To force a "t" definitive article mid sentence when the bands proper name appears would make mentions of the The Beatles a clumsy presentation. And dropping the definitive article from their proper name to solve the redundancy, isn't proper! 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
40. Support using The Beatles in mid-sentence. Just look at the logo on Ringo's drum kit and try to deny that the name of the band was not "The Beatles". On all singles and albums, the band are credited as The Beatles - with the definite article as part of their name. Unlike Pink Floyd who are emphatically not The Pink Floyd. Most highly regarded critical study of the band, Revolution In The Head by Ian MacDonald uses The Beatles mid-sentence. Are the editors supporting "the Beatles" also arguing for "the The" rather than "The The"? Mick gold (talk) 07:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
41. Support "The Beatles" is the band's name and that's how it should appear. Calling The Beatles "the Beatles" is every bit as asinine as calling them "The beatles". I agree that mid-sentence use of either style should be minimal. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
42. Support They are called "The Beatles" so their name should be capitalized. It is possible to omit "The" but that is simply an abbreviation and does not relegate the word "The". Luckily, no matter how this turns out, Beatles fans still know that they are called The Beatles and the whole world knows that Wikipedia has no credibility on any issue let alone this one. Leondegrance (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
43. The Support Foo Fighters do not a definite article at all, ditto Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin and lots of others. Calling these Liverpool boys "Beatles" just hasn't been done - they've always ime been referenced as 'of The Beatles'. etc. and we should follow this consistent usage across the last forty years. Lower-case just wouldn't do it right. --AlisonW (talk)
44. I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.53.89.21 (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC) — 117.53.89.21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
45. I support capitalisation of "The" mid-sentence when refering to the collective band; since the band's full name is "The Beatles", the word "The" is a proper name and, in English, proper names are capitalised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crath (talk • contribs) 01:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)‎
46. Support -- I, too, believe in their being referred to as “The Beatles” mid-sentence, while “George was the Beatle who played lead guitar.” As to the argument relying on mindless adherence to Style Guides, is there not broad acceptance of e. e. cummings’ self-designated capitalization (or lack of same)? I respectfully support The Beatles, as well as the Beatle legacy. -- LouStem (Not an editor, but a fan - and a donor; does that help my argument?) 76.214.57.122 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC) — 76.214.57.122 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
47. Support, and for that matter, I would support calling them The Rolling Stones rather than the Rolling Stones. Robert K S (talk) 11:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The above !vote by Robert K S was cast 11 hours and 21 minutes after the poll's conclusion. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• To the first voter for upper-case "The": please note that this is not about whether or not to use the word THE but whether to write it with a capital T in the middle of a sentence when it begins a band's name. Rothorpe (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• I understand the question. I believe that since "The" is commonly used as being part of the band's name, it should be capitalized as being part of a proper noun. SMP0328. (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• In the name "the Beatles", "the" is a definite article and "Beatles" is the proper noun. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not to everyone, that's what this whole discussion is about. Hot Stop (Edits) 02:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not to everyone? Do we each decide individually if "the" is a noun in this case or a definite article? With "the The" you may have a case but here, there are two words, one is a definite article and the other is a proper noun. That's called grammar. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your childish behavior amuses me. No wonder you drive so many away. Hot Stop (Edits) 02:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• Shucks, and I always thought it was The the (Welsh = Y y). And The aBBa, of course.

Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Since I notice that editors are now starting to !vote, two points of order:
  • The polling page is semi-protected. Does that mean that only autoconfirmed editors can !vote?
  • I'm certain that it was agreed that all of the editors who participated in the two very recent polls would be notified about this poll. I certainly didn't get any notification; did anyone else?

GFHandel ♬  00:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• There was notification here. SMP0328. (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm glad it was notified there, but that's not the point. It was clearly agreed (in the now removed text from this page) that all of the editors who !voted in the recent polls would be notified about this poll. Many of those editors may not watch the Village pump, and they may think that their involvement in the previous two polls was an end to the matter. GFHandel ♬  01:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

To the first point, effectively yes, due to past IP disruption and sockpuppetry. However, if there is support for lifting the protection, I will do so. As far as individual notifications, I don't have a quick way to do this — if someone has a bot or wants to do it manually, that's fine. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Polls are bad. HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

No notification that this "vote" has started was given to some long-standing editors of these articles, like me. Are you serious? Tvoz/talk 02:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Why complain then not !vote? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I remember that "badgering" was discussed and agreed that it was not to be allowed on this page.--andreasegde (talk) 07:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• Before this poll becomes hopelessly confused by the introduction of an unreferenced third option that upper or lower case depends on context or usage, can anyone point to any authoritive source on grammar and composition, or a style guide that supports this rule? A "solution I heard of" just doesn't cut it. Heard of where? Piriczki (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Since when has that been needed? What other style guide uses a "first major editor" direction? This is Wikipedia, we decide things by consensus. Hiding T
    • The distinction (individuals or group as a whole) is too fine to be useful, and I doubt any style guide mentions it. Rothorpe (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

"I loved The Beatles, but John was the Beatle I loved the most." "Each of the Beatles had different opinions" and "Ed Sullivan hosted two shows featuring The Beatles" (per Wasted TimeR above). How is this too fine a distinction? This isn't a "solution I heard of", it is a solution that has been raised many times as this "problem" has been discussed, and it is trivially easy to maintain. Tvoz/talk 21:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

As easy as it is pointless, and I note you are forced into the singular (obviously not "The Beatle") to defend it. Rothorpe (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair point, Rothorpe - I wasn't thinking about plural/singular, and I did not use a good example. (I wasn't forced into the singular, I just dashed my reply off in a hurry.) So I am replacing my example with Wasted TimeR's example above, which makes the point. Tvoz/talk 22:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but pointless it is, and as Gabe demonstrates below, hopelessly complicated. Rothorpe (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll make a couple of points on the "context solution", then I'll let others have at it. 1) It is by far the most complicated of the solutions offered and it crosses a line into metaphysics. 2) I do not see why moving the dispute from an article page by article page basis to an occurrence to occurrence basis helps. We would go from 400+ articles to argue over to 4000+ occurences to argue over. 3) As Piriczki points out above, Wikipedia makes grammar and typography choices based on reliable sources, not editor "hunches" about something they once heard. There are no style guides that I know of that support this. 4) The poll text was discussed for over a month, and was open to all, so the timing of this "suggestion" (just hours after the poll went live) is suspect at best if not dishonest. Its very poor timing, almost like you want to derail the mediation poll altogether for some reason. 5) Speaking to point 1, even Apple Corps Ltd. cannot get this correct:

From the 2009 liner notes for Let It Be: "When this plan was eventually discarded, The Beatles reunited at their own studio in the basement of their Apple HQ."

From the 2009 liner notes for Abbey Road: "In the early part of 1969, the Beatles had recorded in their own studio in the basement of the Apple office building".

If this solution is so simple, then someone please tell me which occurrence did Apple get right and which one did they mess up and why? There are numerous more examples I could give from both www.thebeatles.com and the 2009 liner notes, but I don't want to use up my ration of comments. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I assure you GabeMc that I am not "suspect at best if not dishonest" and that my goal is not to "derail the mediation poll". I would have hoped you knew me better than that, but I guess the paranoia level associated with this mighty matter is too high. For the record, I haven't followed all the twists and turns of this epic battle and I just happened to notice the poll was underway, so I repeated a !vote I had made in some prior poll on this. I indicated above I could live with any solution that puts an end to this and that is true and it's not my desire to raise our blood pressure or that of anyone else for whom this seems to be the defining issue of our time. I have stricken my !vote and I will !comment here again. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wasted FTR, I was talking about User:Tvoz, a long-time (6+ years) party to this dispute and mediation not you, but looking at the chronology I can see why you thought that. Tvoz brought this up much sooner than you did at User:Feezo's talk page. There is no need for the dramatics. but can you answser any of the questions about the "simple solution"? 400-45,000? Can you defend this at all? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Also FTR, I broached the "context solution" early on in the mediation and absolutely nobody wanted to discuss it and nobody objected to its speedy closer by a mediator. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Utterly wrong, Gabe. Using the lower case for individual members and the uppercase for the band name was brought up long, long before my comment on Feezo's page yesterday - for example, it came up in the straw poll on this same topic that you initiated on Sgt Pepper in July, and when WTR mentioned it there, he also referred to it as being "The best solution I ever heard of was this one", meaning that it had been discussed before that. You know this, but you continue to accuse others of dishonesty. I've given my opinion, and I'm done. I edited those articles for over six years because I'm interested in the subject. Your obsession on this minutiae, frankly, is the definition of a waste of time. Tvoz/talk 07:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The archives don't lie Tvoz, and anyone can take a gander and see how intimately involved you have been in this dispute (see history below). Your attempts to turn the tables and make it seem as though I am the cause of this dispute lacks one crucial element, proof! Take a look at the archives and see who looks more "obsessed with this minutiae". It is clear that you are/were a significant leader of the attempt to disregard style manuals for trademark law going back many years. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Thank you for posting a link to that particular page which shows, let's see, that I have long said that the difference btwn the individuals and the group was obvious and should be the determinant or upper or lower case - not just now (and which, by the way, I told Feezo in email on July 27 at the beginning of this); where I reverted someone's unilateral change to the header to again note the local consensus reached; where I said a few times that I thought this whole argument was "lame" and a "waste of time" (that one a couple of times), which it always has been and still is; and that your argument there about liner notes and autobiographies was silly. Please do read the history. It is ludicrous to suggest that I was a leader in this matter, ever. I have always expressed, just about every time this came up after having been settled, that I think it is an extremely unimportant point. When other editors like you opened straw polls about it and I was asked to comment, I usually went over and did so, from the perspective of a long-time editor there who was aware of the local consensus that had been reached, to reiterate it and say let's move on. I don't know how else to tell you this - I never thought this was important, and still don't. You always have and do. Once it was settled we should have moved on to keep improving the articles and forget about this. You are the one who is obsessed with it. And please stop going around making accusations about me on people's talk pages. It is getting tedious. (Finally, don't call me "they" - it's "she".) Tvoz/talk 07:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't have stricken your vote. Simply change your comment, but you still appear to believe that "The Beatles" is correct. SMP0328. (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And Gabe manages to bully yet another editor who he disagrees with. What happened to not badgering? Hot Stop (Edits) 02:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Please stop smearing me Hot Stop. Your personal attacks here should be redacted. If you have a conduct issue with me take it up at the appropriate venue. Your attempts to muddy the waters and poison the well here with baseless accusations are too much. Please rethink your guerilla tactics. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Both of you, please back down. You aren't going to agree, and this isn't the place to resolve it. If you have a problem with each other, take it to ANI, but do not make such accusations in public mediation. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 13:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Has the RfC started? If so, why is this on a talk page? Shouldn't it be on a 'main' page (or whatever the term is)? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Mediation generally take place on the talk page of the relavent case, so the RfC is taking place here as well. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 13:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not abide by the wikipedia MOS and all others? This is a no-brainer people

I'm going to pick on the latest user to write something like this, but they are by no means the first. Do you realize how insulting this is? There are plenty of people on both sides of the issue – it's clearly something about which intelligent people can disagree, and discuss. It certainly doesn't require a brain to follow rules blindly, nor does it require a brain to argue (circularly) "because the rule says so" in a discussion about changing that very rule. It does, however, take a brain to discuss and decide on what those rules should be, and occasionally discuss them again if they might need changing. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Alan, I assume they meant there is no compelling reason to not follow our MoS and every single MoS known to exist. I still have not heard anyone even attempt to explain why we should disregard all known manuals of style. Do you have a compelling argument other than "that the band's name"? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. See my vote above. Sometimes, the rules need changing. If you look at old newspapers, for every decade you go back, you will find stylistic changes. I'm certain that this isn't because editors and writers just didn't care to be consistent (in fact, quite the opposite). It's because styles evolve. This isn't really my field, but one example that comes to mind where the CMoS is arguably illogical and should be fixed is Logical_punctuation#Punctuation. I mention this only to emphasize that this is a discussion about changing the rules, and that the rules are not infallible.

I'd also mention that people need to look at the actual sources to make up their minds. There are several factual inaccuracies and mis-characterizations present in what's been written above, particularly in the votes. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Per: "this is a discussion about changing the rules". This is just as much a discussion about following the rules as well, since every single style guide including ours says to lower-case the article in a band name. I agree, this is a matter of style, that's why the center-piece of our evidence is based on external style guides and the Wikipedia MoS. You still havn't provide a compelling reason why Wikipedia should disregard every known style guide. Also, look at the historical documents from the 1960s. They show that the sources of the time used "the". ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

History

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Before you cast blame for this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_25#the_or_The.3F look at the recent history], you'll see that the editor who brought the Beatles and John Lennon to FAC (PL290) was bullied out of the discussion by the usual suspects and for the usual lame reasons, including a "legal reason" that we must abide by trademarks. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Which led to this. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC) The The I take it that the implication for the article on The The is that we refer to them as the The mid-sentence? If so I have to prefer the capitalised version in the face of everything, because "the The" would just look silly, wouldn't it? I know it is what The Guardian style guide suggests for the band, but they don't seem to follow it [9]. Hiding T 12:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Have you seen the the The logo? Rothorpe (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Lol, not for twenty years or more, forgot that, thanks. Mind if I archive this to stop clogging the page? Hiding T 14:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'd like to note that my contribution to this discussion was removed without my permission, and with no one notifying me. See [10]. My use of levity was not disruptive, it was to raise a serious issue through humor, and that is that this entire issue is beyond absurd. It literally doesn't matter which of the two options is chosen. This has gone beyond the color of the bikeshed here. It is entirely inconsequential whether the "t" is capitalized or not, and my option was meant as a serious protest against the very existance of this poll, which is itself a mockery of Wikipedia by existing. You want to know how this problem gets solve? Two months ago, someone just relents and we let's the other side "win". If this were about making the encyclopedia better, then it wouldn't have ever gotten here over such an inconsequential issue. No, what this is is a pissing contest between two parties that are more interested in being vindicated and "winning" for its own sake, and not for actually making articles at Wikipedia better. Do you know how I know that? Because it literally doesn't matter one iota (well, one "t", but you know) which "t" is used as far as the article quality goes. It only matters to the people involved in the debate because they are so entrenched in it they can't find a way out to save face. You know what, there is no way to save face. Everyone involved on both sides has no face to save, the fact that this got this far means that no one has any honor, no matter how your little "poll" turns out. So, you know what, fine, delete my little joke. But at the end of the day, this will still be the stupidest thing that has happened at Wikipedia, perhaps ever, and if that gives you a moment of pride, I weep for your souls. Vaya con dios. --Jayron32 04:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC) So, you are above pissing contests but not mockery and insults, and the lesson we should learn from you is what exactly? To just let is go and not make a big deal, because you are teaching us to do that here with your ridicule? Did you ever stop to think that one side might actually be correct, or have you always just assumed that its 50/50 neutral without even reading an external manual of style? Do you consider all typographical disputes nonsense or just this one? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC) No, just this one. --Jayron32 04:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC) You know what, you're right. This is distracting from the discussion, and I am going to close it down. I was a bit to earnest in my objections to the nature of the debate. I still object to it, but at this point, I don't think my presence here is helping solve the problem, whatever it is. I apologize for wasting all y'all's time with this nonsense. Carry on. --Jayron32 04:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Trademark

Has it been pointed out that the argument at the top of the "#Evidence for upper-case" section above, about the MOS treatment of trademarks, is completely mis-reading that guideline? What the MOS really says is that we should "Capitalize trademarks, as with proper names" (my emphasis) – i.e. treat trademarks just like normal nouns. The MOS is explicitly advocating against following idiosyncratic orthographic preferences of trademark holders – for instance, don't stick to all-lowercase names just because the trademark is lowercase; don't stick to all-caps just because the trademark does. By the same token, don't stick to capitalized articles just because the trademark does; apply normal orthographic practice instead. To quote this MOS rule as if it meant to mandate the upper-case article is a very odd leap of logic indeed, and I wonder why after all this debate this canard is still allowed to stand there as part of the uppercase camp's common argumentation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Good catch! The Chicago Manual of Style does not specifically mention the Beatles in terms of trademark (they are mentioned in terms of band names) but the CMoS says we should not contort ourselves to conform to any strange trademark orthography. For instance, the CMoS gives as an example the New York Times (lowercase, non-italics 'the' to be used in running prose.) The newspaper's name is trademarked as The New York Times (uppercase 'The', italicized.) In this example, CMoS supports the dismissal of a trademark owner's preference, and supports a lower case 'the' in running prose. Thus the trademark argument falls down when used to support upper case. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This has long been a strawman for "The" and it has no doubt mislead many !voters over the years. Here, from 2007, a user has been erroneously using this as evidence for 5+ years now! Also, it is tantamount to a legal threat, to imply that Wikipedia editors are under some legal obligation to follow TM law or else suffer the wraith of Apple Corps Ltd. Utter nonsense! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gabe, and sorry that I haven't been around more to comment on this discussion. I can appreciate that you feel strongly about the trademark issue, and I can very well see how it being unresolved for five years could make you frustrated. I don't think calling it "utter nonsense" is really going to help the situation here, though. Regardless of whether the argument is valid or not, using language like this stands a good chance of putting other editors on the defensive and making the discussion more heated. In this situation I think it might be enough to simply state that you disagree with the argument, to lay down the evidence against it in a matter-of-fact way, and then to leave the rest to the closing administrator. Does that sound like a reasonable course of action to you? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I hear you Strad, and I will be very cautious to avoid this issue with my future comments. Thanks. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

An open poll

As often mentioned on this page, the poll should be open to as many Wikipedians as possible. Is this true?--andreasegde (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

And what would the purpose of this leading question be? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It has often been said on this page that this poll should be publicised across the whole of Wikipedia, but as some editors above complained that they were not even notified about the start of this poll (after the mediation process), I am merely asking if this poll is to be publicised across as many Wikipedia pages as possible. Does anyone here reject that proposition?--andreasegde (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Then why don't you just make your proposal in the form of some concrete, constructive suggestions about how and where to post further notifications, rather than asking questions full of veiled insinuations? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I find your use of words like "veiled insinuations" to be argumentative and abusive, as I was asking a very simple question. If this poll is to be truly "open", it should be for all Wikipedians. I do not wish that a simple question become an argument, so I will state my case again: "This poll should be open to as many Wikipedians as possible". Do the people involved in the writing of this poll agree, or disagree?--andreasegde (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I am curious where the poll was announced. Can we take it upon ourselves to announce it in likely places? Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Anywhere, and everywhere, apart from friends, family, or sockpuppet accounts. Can we agree on this?--andreasegde (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Answering my own question, here are the main results of "what links here":

• Wikipedia:Village pump (all)#RfC on capitalization
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks#RfC covering trademark capitalization: THE BEATLES
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#RfC on band names
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles#Beatles RfC

All of these were placed by Feezo on 15 September. If someone has a suggestion for more places to post the poll, speak up. Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a list of selected pages, and it does not cover the whole of Wikipedia. How many editors even know about these pages unless they know about how to 'Watch' them, and do they do that? Open this up to everybody, by posting a link on every article page that relates to this poll.--andreasegde (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Every Beatles-topic page? Or every page having to do with pop music and bands? Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Every single page that has the/The as a band name. They should be involved in this. If this poll results in "the", or "The", it will have some effect. If they are not informed, this will be played out for years and years, to the detriment of Wikipedia. Consensus (not rules) will determine the future.--andreasegde (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Andreasegde, sounds to me like you want to rally every music editor in hope that the fear of "the The" or "the Who" will fuel a resistance to this Beatles related mediation. I never intended this to apply to all bands as is evidenced in the involved pages I listed, nor is there any precendent to suggest that this will appy anywhere beyond articles about the Beatles. Now you want to attempt to scare editors at other band projects to help in your never-ending battle for "The". Will you ever stop? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

In reply to andreasgde and Binksternet, yes — we are seeking as wide a community involvement as possible, and anyone who wishes to further publicize the poll may do so. It is important for the notification text to avoid influencing the result, so I propose the following:

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. Although the poll directly affects only that band, the outcome could eventually influence the recommended style for other bands. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time.

Other notification texts are possible, but would definitely need to be discussed first, to avoid the potential for accusations that they were written to "lead" voters. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC) (amended 06:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC))

Looks very good to me. I thank you, Feezo. What do the others think about Feezo's text?--andreasegde (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• In response to Gabe's concerns, the mediators have decided to ask editors to hold off publicizing the poll on other "The/the <band>" type pages until we have a consensus. Other Beatles-related pages are fair game, although Mr. Stradivarius has offered to cover those with AWB. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 14:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

  To add to that - I should have time to do an AWB run tomorrow evening, but if anyone else wants to do it before then, you are most welcome. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

  I had a sudden flash of inspiration, and instead of doing an AWB run of more than 3000 articles, I've simply added a message box to {{WikiProject The Beatles}} advertising the RfC. This may look strange on talk pages with lots of WikiProjects (like Talk:The Beatles), but it should have the desired effect on the vast majority of pages it is transcluded on. For the pages where it doesn't really work, we should do things the old-fashioned way and post a notice in a new section the bottom. I'll go and do some of the obvious ones now - if you spot any others feel free to leave a notice on those as well. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

  Brilliant! Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think Feezo's text is fine. As for where it is publicized - the mediation was based on getting as wide a distribution as possible, as has been properly reiterated, so it would be completely wrong to now decide to limit where the posts go and who is told about the poll. No one knows how other editors - or "music editors" - would respond to this poll, so to in any way limit these postings would call into question the validity of any consensus that might be reached here. And if for some reason you're now looking for consensus on this foundational point to this mediation, then it would have to be highlighted. This is an unnecessary distraction - "as wide as possible" means as wide as possible, and this is not the time to change that. Tvoz/talk 15:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Gabe, would it address your concerns if we reworded thus:

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Please note that the poll relates only to "THE BEATLES", and that the outcome will not apply to any other bands. Thank you for your time.

Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Although your question wasn't addressed to me, I'll jump in anyway and mention that I have a bit of a problem with the new wording directly above. By stating the issue in this way, it gives the impression that: (1) The MoS will remain as is for all other bands, i.e. lowercase "the". (2) Depending on the outcome of the poll, and, by implication, the mediation, there's a chance that "THE BEATLES" would be treated as a special case, with a different usage than any other band with a similar name. If this is what we're actually saying, I'm guessing that a number of !voters might re-think their votes, one way or another. I, for one, would prefer not to make a special rule for one band, no matter how great that band might be. My guess is that the majority of !voters now consider this poll to be consequential for all bands named "The _________". Jburlinson (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, Feezo, but no - I also don't agree with the revised wording. Your original wording is perfectly clear. Of course this could have implications for articles about other bands - and on MoS - that's the point. And that would be the case whichever way this poll ends up, and it no more favors one side or the other. It does not matter any more what the person who brought this to mediation wanted out of it - it now has a life of its own. We have not agreed, and should not say, that "the outcome will not apply to any other band". And notices should be posted as widely as possible, as has been the foundation of this all along. Tvoz/talk 22:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

  Question to Feezo: was it your intention to have "will not apply" in boldface in your suggested wording? It was not bolded or italicized when I read it and commented here, and your wording seems to have been amended thusly here, without any indication of that change being what you intended - unless I missed it. So could you clarify? I am opposed to it in any case, and more so with the boldface, but want to know how this came to be, so that we are all talking about the same thing. Thank you. Tvoz/talk 19:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that was purely Gabe's addition. In the past, proposed "announcement texts" have generally been open for editing, and this has worked well, although it might have been a good idea to make a note of the change. In the end, it doesn't really matter since consensus is against that version (and seems to be against non-Beatles related notification in general). Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 03:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Feezo, that's what I thought, about the unnoted change. I don't see any consensus against non-Beatles notification - and since the basis of this mediation was to seek as wide a community consensus as possible, and of course it has implications beyond this band, I do object to this restriction, especially since some notifications have already been posted on some pages. Although I prefer your original wording, I'm willing to use Mr Strad's wording which does not address wider applications of this one way or the other, and want to get going with this now. If editors of other articles choose to consider this for theirs, so be it - that would be the case whether or not we announce this widely, as this really is a MoS matter. And editors without a history of commenting on this might be more objective. It's time to proceed - the clock is ticking, and this will be over soon enough. As far as I've seen, this question has come up on other bands' pages anyway, so what are we worried about? Tvoz/talk 07:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Since there's been no further comment, I'm going to proceed on this, with Strad's wording. It's closing in on half over - wide means wide - let the chips fall where they may. Tvoz/talk 22:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus for canvassing editors from other band articles. I quote Feezo: "consensus ... seems to be against non-Beatles related notification in general" I agree, as it is. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Looks good to me Feezo. As long as all editors know that the purpose of this mediation poll is to determine how to apply the MoS to articles related to the Beatles and not other bands then I think its fine. Given that all all our evidence in the poll text is geared toward the Beatles, I think it is patently unfair to assume this argument applies to any other band. If we were to attempt to apply this mediation to all bands with a definite article in their name, we would necessarily need to start over from scratch, draft new evidence and presumably, invite editors from other music projects to participate in the mediation and poll draft process. I mean, how could this apply to editors who did not even particiapte nor were they given any opportunity to provide input? Also, if I were to use evidence for all bands my book list would top 500 entries. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, this has already been applied to another band's article; Pink Floyd. The above user has made 1,509 edits to that.--andreasegde (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean that the Pink Floyd article which I took to FAC is actually MoS compliant? Why would application of our current MoS be a problem? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your badgering and personal attacks are abusive. Not only to me, but to others as well.--andreasegde (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC) One editor is advocating a limitation of this poll to Wikipedians.--andreasegde (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC) (Possibly a dumb question): Who? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 20:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Saying "dumb" is abusive, even if you said, "Possibly". Please, think about that.--andreasegde (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Who am I abusing? It's quite obviously my own "dumb" question to which I was referring. I genuinely don't know who you're talking about, and would like to know. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 20:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC) I will not be drawn into a war of words, because you know very well about whom I am talking, no? I was merely stating that "One editor is advocating a limitation of this poll to Wikipedians". As I am not allowed to inter-act with that editor, I said it as politely as I could.--andreasegde (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Well, now I know. I had wondered, though, if you weren't referring to me, given the question I asked at Feezo's talk page. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 20:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC) I understand the misunderstanding, as things are a little hectic at the moment, no? :)) I only wanted to make the point that you had previously made, which was to make this poll as open as possible to all Wikipedians, and not to limit the publication of it. At this point, I am totally willing to accept whatever happens (true), but an open poll is paramount. If it is open, and a consensus is reached, we can all go back to doing something worthwhile. Amen. :))--andreasegde (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• As there has been some disagreement about how to describe the impact this poll might have on the Manual of Style when posting notifications, how about we simply don't mention it? I suggest the following:

  You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus.

I have already posted this message on six Beatles-related talk pages - apologies if this was jumping the gun a bit. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• That's not bad, Mr. S., but I do agree with User:Jburlinson and User:AlanM1, both of whom have made the point that of course this mediation can have an effect on the MoS - and I'd say so be it if it does. So I prefer Feezo's wording above (at 21:23, 17 September 2012, which includes Although the poll directly affects only that band, the outcome could eventually influence the recommended style for other bands.) because it accurately reflects the reality. In general, I think we should get notices posted already - as widely as possible, not excluding other bands where this is relevant - i.e., those with "The/the" in their names - and see if we actually can get a community consensus. These delays and restrictions are not in the spirit of seeking a wide community consensus. Tvoz/talk 19:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• We cant piggy back this in now. This should have been discussed before the poll went live, not now. I strongly oppose any suggestion that this poll will somehow be binding across Wikipedia. Afterall, the mediators have very clearly stated that the poll is not binding even to the involved parties! Why would the poll be binding for editors who were not given any chance to give input? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not suggest anywhere that we should say it will be binding. Feezo's original wording said "could eventually influence" - that is not saying it would be binding to anyone. It merely identifies why the rest of the community might be interested in weighing in here. And I hope we can get on with it already. Tvoz/talk 22:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I wasn't responding to you Tvoz. There is no clear reason why this should apply to other bands when you seem to be saying that our MoS dosen't even apply. This is just another scare tactic IMo, intende4d to drum up uninvolved support for breaking grammar and MoS guidelines. Tvoz, please stop badgering every single comment I make. You are making this mediation feel like a WP:BATTLE. So please just refrain from commenting on my comments if you can't be civil and I will do the same for you. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC) You telling someone to stop badgering is hilarious. Hot Stop (Edits) 23:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC) I agree, Hot Stop. The editor (above), says, "just another scare tactic - please stop badgering every single comment I make - refrain from commenting on my comments if you can't be civil - It sure seems like you don't care at all". It's the stuff one usually reads at ANI.--andreasegde (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Continued discussion

• Comment: (in reply to Intelati1's !vote for upper case): Those are rules for titles of works, not groups. Just one example that proves you wrong is the Rolling Stones. Were you correct, it would be The Rolling Stones. The general, traditional rule for groups, including bands, is lowercase the; exceptions are made, but the evidence here is so contradictory that this can't reasonably be claimed to be one. -Rrius (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Agreed. This is one of many misleading pieces of "evidence" for upper-case that is really not evidence at all, except that WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. They were really scraping the barrel hard at this point. Titles of art and movies, how ridiculous! But they did not care of course that not all things follow the same English rules of grammar, nor did they care about having an honest poll text. They are more concerned with scaring and misleading people into "The". Tis a pity. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Who exactly are "they"? Jburlinson (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Hot Stop was the one who added that bit, as I recall. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC) I should point out that even though I feel the comparison is misleading and highly inaccurate, I still assume good faith on his part, and I don't hold it against anyone.Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC) How about the comment that started this section? Or the follow-up about "misleading", "scraping the barrel," "ridiculous!", "nor did they [whoever they are] care about having an honest poll text," and "scaring people"? What in heaven's name is going on around here? Jburlinson (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC) There have certainly been some quite heated exchanges around here lately. Thankfully things seemed to have calmed down today, so I hope we can get on with the poll without any unnecessary drama. I agree with Jburlinson that remarks like "scraping the barrel" and "ridiculous" aren't really appropriate here. In the end the closing administrator will be looking at the constructive arguments made in the discussion, and will likely ignore comments that focus on the motives of other editors. The most productive thing that editors here can do, in my opinion, is to calmly and factually present the relevant arguments and evidence for their opinion and leave it up to the closing admin to judge the ultimate consensus. Making barbed comments has a very high chance of aggravating other editors, and a very low chance of actually affecting the result. So I recommend that we keep things as civil as possible - things will just be much easier that way. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC) I agree, and I thank you, but does this mean demanding that a certain editor will be made to stop making abusive/argumentative comments here, as well as on people's talk pages? I refer you to Jburlinson's page. Jburlinson has done everything asked of him, and more, and he doesn't deserve the kind of attacks he is now getting. The use of the word "Stop" should be explained, and then adhered to.--andreasegde (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC) "How about the comment that started this section?"— What the devil is that supposed to mean exactly? -Rrius (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC) It was Jburlinson's comment to a certain editor about that editor's later comments. You may have to read the whole thing.--andreasegde (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Not it wasn't. The first sentence says nothing about GabeMc (I am beyond tired of the "certain editor" nonsense). Its first sentence is aimed at "the comment that started this section". Since my comment is the one that starts this section (the one entitled "Continued discussion") and is marked with a big "Comment", it certainly appears to be directed at me. If GabeMc's contribution of 23:40 on 17 September was the intended target, something simple like "GabeMc's comment" would have sufficed. Instead, it appears Jburlinson is saying my comment is "misleading and highly inaccurate" as that is the obvious import of what was said, and until he or she confirms that is not the case, how can I do other than interpret it that way? -Rrius (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC) For clarity's sake, I need to point out that the question How about the comment that started this section? was in direct response to an immediately preceding comment by Mr. Stradivarius advising editors to avoid calling another !voter "wrong". Mr. Stradivarius' comment has now been deleted from the transcript of this section -- so it makes my question seem kind of odd and out of context. Here's what the deleted comment originally said: "Hello again Evan. I can see what you're trying to say here, but I would be careful about that last sentence - saying someone is "wrong" is almost never helpful in this type of situation, regardless of the truth of the matter. No matter how good your intentions, it is just too easy for other editors to take it personally." So my question was a reference to the first comment of this section, which called !voter Intelati1 "wrong". I hope this explains the question and I also hope you'll accept my apology for coming across too aggressively. Jburlinson (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• No, keep it how it is. There are numerous things with the title 'The Beatles' on for example I have a copy of the poster that advertised The Beatles with the bluegenes etc, which had their name pronounced as 'The Beatles'. Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd

It's a grammatical subtlety

I hope you all don't mind me starting a new section, but I think the confusion comes from the "sort of" plural word "Beatles".

We can say "John Lennon was a founding member of The Beatles. He was a Beatle". We do not say "Roger Daltrey founded The Who. He was a Who." Likewise, no one says someone was "a Banshee" or "a Cricket". This is a unique situation, I think. (Amusing note: firefox accepts "Beatles" as a word but not "Beatle")

The band is called The Beatles. But in much writing, and from the members themselves, the band name is unpluralized to refer to individuals in a way that comes up so rarely that "style guides" just can't cover it. "Glenn Frey was an Eagle" just doesn't come up that much. "Paul McCartney was a Beatle" does. But it should really read "Paul McCartney was a member of The Beatles".

Rules of style always include exceptions to make the reading easier, according to my Strunk & White. I am going to !vote for the capitalized version - with latitude for exceptions. I don't think this needs an iron boot to deal with.

I also suspect that some esteemed fellow editors may be pursuing this beyond what is necessary to write a good encyclopedia. In good faith on their part, of course. Huw Powell (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I completely endorse the idea of upper case as the band name but allowing latitude for exceptions as is common practice - that's a better way of expressing what a few of us were saying above. As in "I loved The Beatles, but John and Paul were the Beatles I most wanted to meet." Tvoz/talk 02:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. Hopefully, a consensus will form around this idea. SMP0328. (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Doubtful. This is not a new idea and really isn't compromise at all. It presupposes that "The Beatles" is correct when discussing the band as an entity rather than as individuals. That is exactly the thing at issue. There is no proof that the uppercase version is used more often, let alone exclusively. Even official band-related sites use both upper- and lowercase interchangeably to refer to the band as an entity, so the supposition is simply not correct. Wikipedia's Manual of Style has a general pro-lowercase bent, and one of its main influences, The Chicago Manual of Style, specifically cites the band as an example and says the Beatles. Huw Powell mentions exceptions, but the reality here is that, as a rule, "the" should not be capitalised and there is no evidence that "The Beatles" is prevalent over "the Beatles". As such, the general rule should apply. -Rrius (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Would it be correct to say that if consensus favors the uppercase style, there could be exceptions where lowercase would be used, but not the other way around? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess everybody would agree that in the (rare) cases where you use "the Beatles" for referring to a set of individual band members, i.e. as the regular grammatical plural of "a Beatle", lower-case is the only possible option. Usage in the literature is quite unanimous on that too. The reverse of course does not hold. (When I counted upper-case and lower-case usage in the corpora, I systematically factored out these individual-member instances, not including them in the main statistical count. They were invariably lower-case, without exception.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's technically wrong to call someone "a Beatle" instead of "a member of The Beatles" – it's a form of slang, I suppose. I don't think it's related to the question at hand, though. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Simple Question - Why is this easier? We would move from an article by article dispute to a sentence by sentence dispute. 400+ articles to 4,000+ individual occurences. How does exacerbating the problem solve the problem? Prediction - While in theory this may seem reasonable, in practice it would result in extended disputes over each mid-sentence use that is not capitalised and every mention will be argued as referring to the band. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:SMcCandlish

 – GabeMc posed the question to me individually on my user talk page for some reason. I'm moving it here, including my reply, because this is a public debate, and has nothing to do with me and my editing in particular, so it's not relevant on my personal talk page, meanwhile what I have to say on the matter is germane here. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.

[Please stop trying to fork the discussion between the public one at the RfC/RfM, and my talk page. I decline to discuss anything substantive with regard to the band name capitalization in user talk, because it just means I need to re-discuss it at the proper venue, and I don't have time for this redundancy.] It's simple: Don't change the official names of thing to suit whims, like not personally liking "The Beatles" in mid-sentence. That is all, please drive though. See longer post of mine below on how to handle cases of a single Beatle being referred to, etc. This stuff is not complicated at all. Nothing creates any sort of "4,000 individual occurrences" problem, other than continuing to assert that it should be "the" or "The" depending on some kind of positional determination. You are railing against a confusion that you yourself have created. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 07:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Quiz

From the 2009 liner notes for Let It Be: "When this plan was eventually discarded, The Beatles reunited at their own studio in the basement of their Apple HQ."

From the 2009 liner notes for Abbey Road: "In the early part of 1969, the Beatles had recorded in their own studio in the basement of the Apple office building".

Which did Apple get correct and which did they get wrong and why? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

They're both right, because to "reunite" means the whole band, as you can not reunite half of something. They did record in the basement studio, but not all together at the same time for every single track they recorded. Next question.--andreasegde (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

As I'm in the "upper-case" camp, I believe the proofreader missed the missing cap in the Abbey Road case. If I really wanted to be nit-picky, I suppose I could argue that Let It Be is wrong as well because the individual Beatles re-unite to form a group, and "the" should therefore be lower-case. But then again, speaking of them individually as "a (the) Beatle(s)" is a form of slang, as noted above, so it's hard to say what the rules should be. I'd probably have left it upper-case, were it my job to edit it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, but I don't believe being called "a Beatle" is a form of slang.--andreasegde (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

AlanM1 is using the term "slang" imprecisely (from a linguistics point of view); what he really means is jargon, namely it is common journalism jargon to use alternatives phrasings in this stilted manner, simply for prose variety. E.g. a senator from Virginia might be referred to as "the Virginian", or someone who shot someone else might be referred to as "a gunman" or "the slayer of two". Referring to McCartney as "a Beatle" is the same kind of circumlocution for effect. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 11:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it at least somewhat telling that three proponents of this "solution" have three different interpretations of the above two examples? Again, why is this easier? 400+ articles or 4,000+ sentences? Shall we have an RfC and mediation on a per sentence basis? And what of new editors who are not familiar with this system? Will they know why the usage is mixed? Why is this a simple and pragmatic approach that does not complicate the issue, and why can no proponents address this very simple question? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:SMcCandlish

 – GabeMc posed the question to me individually on my user talk page for some reason. I'm moving it here, including his reply and my re-reply, because this is a public debate, and has nothing to do with me and my editing in particular, so it's not relevant on my personal talk page, meanwhile what I have to say on the matter is germane here. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.

No, it's not a grammatical subtlety, but there are some axe-grinders who keep wanting to turn it into one. The first one is correct, because the name of the band is "The Beatles", not "the Beatles". They got it wrong the second time because record company marketing flacks are not grammarians. Even entertainment industry journalists (i.e. those most often writing about bands) are not grammarians, they're journos whose job it is to spit out as much prose on deadline as possible. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 06:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure they aren't both incorrect? Anyway, so you admit that Apple cannot get this straight but somehow you think Wikipedia editors will not argue over each individual occurrence? Why is this a better option then either "the" or "The" throughout. Also, why cite grammar when grammar is clearly in support of "the". Every style guide we researched supports "the" for grammatical reasons and not one supports "The". So you seem to want to side with grammar but also disregard all style guides. I find that confusing. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, this is very simple: Don't change the name of something to suit your whims, be they stylistic or pseudo-grammatical. Doing so violates WP:NOR, WP:SOAPBOX, etc. And, yes, I'm sure they aren't both incorrect. In the first case, the band as a unit had reunited. But it's bogus hairsplitting anyway, this notion that it would be okay to use lower case when referring to only three of four band members in a construction like this [See newer comment further down, in which I address how to deal with more complex cases]. That's silly, and it will just sow dispute and confusion. You're mistaking my argument anyway. Not only did I not suggest that editor's wouldn't argue about it (Wikipedias will argue about anything), I did not mention anything about grammar guides and rules. I'm siding with don't change the name/title of something, willy-nilly to make it fit a grammatical pattern, for the same reason you don't lowercase "the" in The Lord of the Rings mid-sentence, either. What applies to the titles of works (movies, songs, etc.) must, for basic sanity's sake, also apply to the title of a company or a band or the UK Prime Minister or whatever. My argument beyond this was that looking at what Apple Records or Rolling Stone do is a waste of time, because music industry journos and PR flacks don't pay any attention to grammar nitpicks like this (I'm not saying there's a grammar rule they are violating, I'm saying they simply DGaF at all, one way or the other.) As the last link suggests, Wikipedians shouldn't care either, but some incessantly combative handful of them do, and so here we are. Don't change the name of something; leave it alone. That's simple and very easy to remember, and doesn't vary from context to context. It's not "don't change the name of something unless it's a band but not the entire band (or some other pretend rule I just made up)", nor "don't change the name of something unless you like the way your favored version looks in your pet sentence". It's Don't change the name of something, period (or full stop in British English). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 11:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The voice of reason, in this desert of contradictions. I thank you so much, SMcCandlish.--andreasegde (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, per your above comment: "Don't change the name of something to suit your whims", are you saying that "the Beatles" and "The Beatles" are two distinct names? Why? Who is changing the name of the band? We are discussing the proper way to capitalise the name, not how to change the name. Also, since Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, which style guide supports this "context solution", because as far as I know, this is entirely WP:OR that completely fails WP:V. If we are to make a choice on style, we need a third-party source to verify this is correct and common, as of yet you have provided only your personal opinion not supported by a single printed book. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course they're two distinct names, or this argument would never have arisen. Wikipedia bases its facts on secondary sources; it bases its style on editorial discretion arrived at by consensus at WT:MOS. See WP:SSF on why confusing these two different models of Wikipedia operation is very fallacious and leads to nothing but problems and utterly pointless fighting. NB: While I feel that "The Beatles" is the correct way to render such a name, I would rather see MOS arrive at a consensus of "the Beatles" and shut this pointless argument down for good, than get my way for now but have debate about it continue. Having a standard is more important in a case like this than what the standard is, because the two options are totally arbitrary (this is not always the case with style issues raised at MOS, e.g. logical quotation vs. typesetters' quotation, in which the first option provides precision that the second does not). Changing "The Beatles" to "the Beatles" in the middle of a sentence is in fact, and obviously, a change to the name. Let's not be silly. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 07:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not a grammatical subtlety. It's a matter of style. We need to settle on one. There is no "truth" in style, only what makes more sense and is more consistent with general use. I think it's been demonstrated that "the Beatles" is that form, and that's what we should stick with. All the time spent arguing over this could have been spent on improving articles. --Lukobe (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I would argue it's "The Beatles", but certainly agree it's a matter of style not fact and simply a matter of picking one or the other and sticking with it. Like you I'd much rather see this time and energy spent on something constructive instead of any further argument on this pointless crap. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 07:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The "Let It Be" version is wrong to capitalize the "The"; in this specific case, both sentences refer to the Beatles' studio as "their studio", which means that in both sentences the Beatles are being referred to as a plural group of individual "Beatles" and not as a singular band (and therefore these examples do not apply well to the debate), and the "the" should never be capitalized. The use of the word "reunited" further emphasizes that the word "Beatles" is referring to 4 individuals, not 1 band; "the Beatles reunited" literally means "the members of (The/the) Beatles reunited". If it read "the members of the Beatles reunited" would anyone capitalize the first "the"? RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

How many high-quality sources need to be wrong?

• If SMcCandlish is correct then the following sources are wrong:

• Oxford University Press
• Cambridge University Press
• Harvard University Press
• University of California Press
• Ashgate
• Macmillan
• Continuum
• Virgin Publishing Ltd.
• Butcher's
• Fowler's
• Hart's
• The Chicago MoS
• The Oxford Style Guide
• The Times style and usage guide
• The Guardian and Observer style guide
• Rolling Stone
• Pitchfork
• Wired
• Billboard
• Mojo
• Vibe
• Spin
• Allmusic
• MTV
• Smithsonian
• National Geographic
• The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame
• The White House.gov
• The Encyclopaedia Britannica

Does it really seem likely that all these high-quality WP:RSs are wrong, while SMcCandlish, who hasn't provided a single WP:RS to support his opinion is correct? Really? Over Cambridge, Oxford and Harvard? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no universal "correct" here (see linguistic description vs. prescriptive grammar). The entire concept of "correct" with regard to language usage is basically Victorian schoolmarm nonsense. The issue before us at Wikipedia is one thing and one thing only: What is best for Wikipedia users? (This includes editors as well as readers.) The Wikipedia Manual of Style is not bound to do exactly what a majority of offline sources do or recommend (and your hand-picked list of sites that do one thing is not proof of any such majority, only of your patience for digging up examples that agree with you), especially where doing so results in more difficult editing or more reader-confusing results. A lack of orthographical consistency to satisfy absolutely nothing but a handful of people's alleged grammatical nitpick about whether or not a musical group is being referred to as a unit or as individuals (which is often going to be entirely debatable and subjective anyway, i.e. pure original research) is obviously a long-proven case of such confusion and dispute, since it's been going on for years and we're now we're at WP:RFM. When a particular Beatle (or Sex Pistol or whatever) is being referred to in an incontrovertibly individual manner, use a non-confusing construction. About 99 times out of 100, the way around any grammar/style issue is to use common sense and rewrite. If you have something like "McCartney and Starr have announced plans to perform together at a January 2013 charity fundraiser; it will be the first time [t|T]he Beatles have shared a stage since [date]", it would be bordering on disruptive just to make a point to insist on this wording and then editwar back and forth over capitalization, on the basis that one editor thinks this "must" be individual mention, and another insists that it really "must" mean the group, since they're the only two surviving members, meanwhile all other editors and readers would be rolling their eyes, thinking of WP:DGAF. Just drop the pseudo-dispute and rewrite: "...the first time these Beatles have..." or "...the first time these members of The Beatles have...". This is not rocket science. It's not even really a grammar issue, its a basic English composition matter that most 13-year-olds already understand: If it's awkward or confusing, rewrite and move on. As for the penchant of some journalists and other random parties to lower-case "The" as "the" in band names in the middle of a sentence, WP does not care and does not need to care. We don't change the names of things to suit personal peccadilloes like this; if we did, we'd be writing the Lord of the Rings, etc., and we all know this isn't how we do it. There's no reason to make a magically special exemption for band names. Citing WhiteHouse.gov and MTV and so on is pure argument to authority, a logical fallacy. It's fallacious because precisely zero of these sources you are citing are authorities on how to handling names in articles in an online encyclopedia. Please, stop trying to complicate matters; we do not need more "quizzes". All the facts are already here, and all the viewpoints we're going to need to weigh have already spoken up, again and again, year after year. It's is the function of MOS to prescribe (and where necessary proscribe) particular styles to make editing and reading easier and more consistent. This is one such case: Don't rename t\hings to suit your whims. PS: See also WP:SSF on why it's fallacious to cite subject-matter reliable sources (e.g. on physics or birds or in this case on rock music, as if they were authoritative on style matters; it's the same as confusing, say, an expert on building bridges with an expert on how to best paint a picture of a bridge - don't confuse the technical underpinning of a topic and with how that topic is stylistically presented to a particular audience, as the two concepts have nothing in common. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 06:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - from the very earliest days of these articles the question came up (see, for example, a couple of items in Talk: The Beatles/Archive 1), but was handled with common sense. For a long time the working policy for Beatles-related pages was pretty much that - common sense - then hell broke loose, and then for the last year or so, it was successfully handled by writing around it and avoiding the mid-sentence awkward construct wherever possible. The point about the difference between individuals and the group that I was agreeing with way upstream and times in the past, was meant as an illustration of why we don't need an iron-clad straightjacket command for how to write this - sometimes the lower case makes sense, and most of the time the upper case is right because it's the band's name. Regardless of what music journalists and pr people and liner notes writers say - they didn't know, when they were rushing to meet their deadlines, that their orthography would be the basis for such a brouhaha. And no one need have a heart attack because there's an occasional mixture of upper and lower case. Tvoz/talk 08:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Does it really seem likely that all the above named high-quality WP:RSs are wrong, while SMcCandlish, who still hasn't provided us with a single WP:RS to support his opinion is correct? Really? Over Cambridge, Oxford and Harvard? Why? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"Context" quiz II

Quiz II: All examples are from the official Beatles website:

• a) - "Things are beginning to move for the Beatles, the r-and-b styled British group."
• b) - "The disc ‘Please Please Me’ follows closely on the heels of their first hit ‘Love Me Do’ written by group members John Lennon and Paul McCartney. It looks like a bright future for the Beatles, but knowing them I don’t think they’ll let it go to their heads."
• c) - "Earlier on that eventful day, Parlophone had released the Beatles’ second album."
• d) - "While the majority of their debut album had been completed in one day, The Beatles had to record their second release in-between other engagements that included, concert tours, numerous radio and TV performances ... and their first international tour to Sweden."
• e) - "The new album is a complete contrast to the Beatles’ first album ‘Please Please Me’."
• f) - "Released on 10th July, 1964, the Beatles third album in less than eighteen months was timed to coincide with the cinema opening of their first movie."
• g) - "The Spring and early Summer of 1964 saw The Beatles filming and recording new material both for the movie and their next album."
• h) - "Tuesday proved a sensationally historic night for British pop music when the Beatles performed their first live U.S. concert in Washington to an overwhelming reception."
• i) - "After their concert, the Beatles were guests of honour of the British Ambassador in Washington at a masked ball."
• j) - "Nowadays, the Beatles don’t get much chance to play them."

Please indicate below which examples are correct, which are incorrect and why? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• See above for why none of this matters. This latest string of examples (why are you calling these "quizzes"?) demonstrates nothing other than that the writers of a website about The Beatles are not terribly consistent from page to page on their own site, which is not an issue for Wikipedian concern. External websites and such are not authorities, anyway, on how Wikipedians should consistently apply style when writing online encyclopedia articles. Only WP:MOS is an authority on that, and this discussion belongs at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, should be settled there, and should just be put to rest. This years and years of incessant bickering over an utterly trivial and largely subjective style matter is blatantly tendentious and disruptive point-making. WP does not change the names of things to suit someone's style peccadilloes, the end, please move on. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 06:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! That's what I've been saying all along. This is an MoS based argument, and our current MoS, as well as all others, unanimously, and unambiguously support lower-case. Thanks for this clarification. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - It is my opinion that any context-based solution is doomed to fail. While I found the "grammatical subtlety" argument quite an interesting one when it was raised some time ago by andreasegde, I have come to the conclusion that it is inherently unworkable. Primarily this is because it creates inconsistency within articles. When new editors show up and notice this inconsistency, they may create a "t" to a "T", and so on. Next thing you know, we're back here. This argument should be excluded from the poll for the same reason we agreed to exclude the "neither" option. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"a The Beatles"

There are a few people supporting lower case because "Prevents a slip into writing 'a The Beatles concert was performed with three original The Beatles on stage.'" but I think that's rather foolish because we're not saying 'The' has to go before each mention. Coincidentally, it would be just a logical to say uppercase prevents the same. Hot Stop (Edits) 03:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I wrote that quote, so I'll say a little more here: I feel that there's one of two options here. Either "The" is such an integral part of the band's name that no mention of the band can be complete without it, in which case I could support a special exemption to standard English capitalization. Or it's not integral and can be left out when grammar dictates that it's better left out, in which case no special rules of capitalization different from what WP and dozens of other sources use are needed to deal with the band's name. I don't believe it's logical to say in one instance that the band is The Beatles and must always have a capital "The" if the "the" can be removed. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Well said! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you heard of adjectives? Hot Stop (Edits) 12:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This whole "is it part of the name or not" debate suffers from a severe amount of oversimplification, from both sides. In terms of the grammatical realities of English, this is not actually a dichotomy. The English language has whole continuum of types of proper names that stand in a more or less fixed combination with a definite article, with different degrees of conventionalization and syntactic rigidness. The Beatles case is towards the less rigid end of the continuum, but this is a matter of gradience, not a yes-or-no thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Blatant Whatever happened to this? "be willing to voluntarily stop interacting with the other mediation participants on the poll page, or on other pages, for the duration of the poll?" Torn up before it was signed.--andreasegde (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Concerns related to the administration of this page are to be sent privately to myself or Mr. Stradivarius. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate venue for user conduct complaints.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Fixed I have to say that I do feel this poll is being fixed, and was "fixed" before it started. There have been NO serious warnings at all about some serious transgressions by a certain editor, as he was allowed to seriously bully people with his badgering, and insults, without any kind of serious warning. I dare you to tell me I am totally wrong about this, and say that it was totally neutral in every way.--andreasegde (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC) How can you fix a poll like this? Did someone offer you money to vote lowercase? Rothorpe (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Motion for procedural closure This is obviously not a dispute for mediation between two parties, it's a basic WP:MOS question, and how to handle capitalization of band names can only reasonably be resolved at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. I move that this RfM be closed without prejudice, as a simple "jurisdictional" matter, and the discussion reopened at WT:MOS where it belongs, "advertised" via an RfC and perhaps a post at WP:VPP, even WP:CD if it seems necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) No way. Of course you'd be right if you said that a mediation, as long as it really is just conducted between two parties, cannot decide a matter like this on behalf of everybody else, but this here is now a perfectly valid open polling procedure, which has already found massive outside participation – well beyond the circles of editors who were originally involved in the dispute – and it is already advertised via RfC and other venues. So this is a perfectly valid way of getting a decision for such a matter. Per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, it doesn't matter where exactly the poll is held; what matter is that it is accessible to all interested editors, which it is. Besides, at this point, with almost 70 people having already participated, are you really proposing to tell all those people: sorry, your !votes no longer count, please start over again, yet another time? Not gonna happen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Part of the problem is that some !voters believe that this vote pertains specifically and exclusively to The Beatles, whereas others cast their !vote with the understanding that the outcome could affect articles for other bands with similar-type names. Frankly, even those of us who have been involved in constructing the poll text might not have a shared understanding & agreement concerning the scope and applicability of the poll. So the result of this poll will not be definitive, since it'll be unclear what some of the !voters believed they were voting for. More and more, I'm beginning to think that SMcCandlish's motion is a good one. Re-casting this as a discussion/referendum on the MoS regarding all band names would clarify what's going on. Jburlinson (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Mr Stradivarius announces at the top of this page that the RfC is about the Beatles, mentioning no further application. Rothorpe (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC) That's correct Rothorpe! The filing party, me, named three Beatles articles and none other. I never intended this to matter anywhere except at Beatles articles. Why should others come along and arbitrarily change the meaning of this mediation case? Why not open a new mediation case for all bands if that's what someone wants to do? Also, if the current version of the Wikipedia MoS is in full agreement with "the", one could argue that as szyslak pointed out so well, its actually the "The" faction that should have the burden to earn an exception at the MoS, not the lower-case faction. Why would anyone need to go through 4 months of dispute to follow the current MoS anyway? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Why would anyone care enough to drag this out over four months. Hot Stop (Edits) 23:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Why does that logic not apply to both sides of this disagreement? It takes two to tango as they say, and if the other side would follow the MoS this would not be a dispute at all. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Or if one side accepted the working consensus in place for years, we wouldn't be here. Hot Stop (Edits) 23:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Actually, this is the fourth "The/the" poll in 18 months that is in favour of "the". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC) You may have never intended this to matter outside Beatles articles, but that doesn't mean it doesn't. As the "The" camp pointed out, there is inconsistency about "The/the" in band names throughout Wikipedia, not just on Beatles articles, and we must be wary of unintended complications; which is why I would support the creation of a larger discussion regarding all band names, such as Jburlinson proposed. Therefore, I think this should be closed, but not because this is "the wrong place for this" (per FutPerf's argument above) but because this discussion needs to be about all bands, not just the Beatles. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC) If "the" prevails no changes to our MoS will be needed. If someone else wants to take on a project-wide RfC then they can do so, I am not interested and there is no good reason why this mediation should be closed after more than 2 months of hard work. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC) The "evidence" for both uppercase and lowercase implicitly and/or explicitly states that the outcome of the poll/mediation could have consequences for other bands. Anyone who has read the evidence carefully could easily be operating under the assumption that articles for other bands might be affected in the long run. Jburlinson (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC) Comment - Are you all aware that the Wikipedia MoS is unanimoulsy in favour of lower-case? No changes would need to be made unless upper-case won. That point seems to be getting lost here entirely. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC) Our in-house style guide, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks states: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'." The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Trademarks states: "Trademarks should be written in a way that follows standard English text formatting and capitalization rules." The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Capitalization states: "Standard English text formatting and capitalization rules apply to the names of bands and individual artists". The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) states that a lower-case definite article should be used in band names: "Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word 'the' should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g. 'Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues.'" Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Capitalization states: In band names, and titles of songs or albums, capitalize all words except: articles (an, a, the) The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters says: "Generally do not capitalize the definite article in the middle of a sentence." From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Flags#Inappropriate use: "For example, with an English flag next to him, Paul McCartney looks like an 'English singer-songwriter from Liverpool who was in the Beatles'; without the flag next to him, he looks like an 'English singer-songwriter from Liverpool who was in the Beatles'". The Wikipedia Manual of Style says: "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." That was this version, which uses "the". Our MoS is clear and consistent. Absent a compelling reason to ignore the advice from our in-house style guide we should follow standard English text formatting. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC) Hell no - The RfC is open and has been publicized. Keeping it here and ongoing for the next three weeks will not have a negative effect on participation or on anything else. Making everyone go back to the drawing board and start over somewhere else is ridiculous and will only drag this nonsense out for even longer. That said, I do think we would do well to publicize this some more. Has anyone given some thoughts to my watchlist notice suggestion? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Community topic bans for all disputants How about three year topic bans for the disputants because they have become too fixated on this stupid issue about which very few other than they care? Why should the community constantly have to respond to these repeated pointless questions? Please work on something else. —Cupco 22:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC) The nature of MedCom is such that we are somewhat immune from sanctions at other venues based on our actions here. For good or bad, this is what needed to happen to solve this long-term. Don't cast a pox on both houses, one side has all known MoS guides on its side and the other has, well, a list of band websites? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC) How long has this dispute involved mediation, RFCs, and other uses of community time and effort, so far? How long do you think it should go on before community topic bans become appropriate? —Cupco 23:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC) I filed the mediation case on 12 July. This RfC is one week old with 3 weeks left to run. I would agree with topic bans after the mediation is completed, for anyone who decides to not follow the outcome. FTR, I copyedited and took another article to FAC during this mediation (Pink Floyd), so not all of us have been unproductive during this process. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Gabe's reply summarizes privilege fairly well — as the RfC is taking place in the context of a mediation case, sanctions cannot be imposed based on conduct here. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 00:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do we even need a standard on this

The capitalization of the word "the"? Are you kidding me? Let's look at it this way - if some guy went to 500 pages to change "color" to "colour", what do you think would happen? The guy would first get a warning, and if they didn't stop, they'd get blocked for disruptive editing, right? Why should the capitalization of "The" be any different. I created a new vote option to have no standard, the only reasonable option in my opinion, and some dude reverted me. Don't revert it - I suspect that if you keep it, neither capital or lowercase will receive any new votes, as all new votes will probably go to the new "no standard" option because everybody thinks this whole discussion is stupid. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Trade Mark registration

I have undertaken a search at the IPO Office for Trade Marks related to “Beatle” and you can all see the result here
I note that all the results, with one exception, relate to what is a Trade Mark with Device –i.e. a stylised rendition of either “Beatles” or “The Beatles.” Most of these devices appear to have been registered with and without the word “the.” All also appear to be rendered in all caps. As WP can’t render a device in text we cannot make any decisions based on devices.
The one exception that does not have a device is Beatles which does not contain a “the” - in either upper or lower case! Therefore assumptions that “the” should be rendered in either upper or lower case are incorrect based on Trade Mark registration.
There is also a list of Trade Marks owned by Apple Corps Ltd here. Well worth a peek.
As there is no compelling Trade Mark reason to render as “The Beatles” then common usage and [{WP:MOS]] must take precedent – as I have already voted above.
By all means check that I have read and interpreted the information as correct. I have checked the UK registry (it’s where the Beatles come from!), but many of these marks will be international. I assume the 1986 dates are renewal/transfer dates, rather than the first registration.--Richhoncho (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The next dispute

Presuming this RfC will close in favor of a lower-case definite articles mid-sentence I think it's reasonable to consider the likelihood that an editor will invariably cope-edit sentences to reduce the occurrence mid-sentence; while another will revert forcing a defense of the mid-sentence presentation. In general I think it's prudent to clarify that an edit which uses prose that avoids mid-sentence occurrences, without compromising clarity, is preferable. IMO 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No, editors will be free to compose sentences for best reading flow. Nobody will be "forced" into defending a mid-sentence occurrence of "the" Beatles. Any disputed wording should be taken to the talk page, same as before. There on the talk page, arguments based on reading flow and good composition will be given the greatest weight. Difficult-to-solve arguments will likely be decided based on this RfM. Binksternet (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that the idea of "minimizing" the band's name mid-sentence stands a very good chance of preventing any article where that is implemented from satisfying criterion 1a of the Featured article criteria, particularly if we use awkward constructs like the two I mentioned here. In fact, the only Beatles-related article to pass FAC since the implementation of that solution, Paul McCartney, did so while disregarding it, with the implicit consent of every single reviewer. Not that it matters much now, of course, but I thought I'd share that observation. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo's page

I think we should post our notice at Jimbo's page. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree

To increase exposure. strike support per Fut. Perf ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC) ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Absolutely, and maybe some watchlist notices too. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
2. I would suggest just going ahead and doing it. Hot Stop (Edits) 03:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
3. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 16:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Disagree

1. If anybody thinks Jimbo would personally be interested, then by all means notify him, like you would any other Wikipedian, but let's not misuse his page as a general noticeboard, which is not what it's for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
2. Per Fut. Perf., his page is not a noticeboard. It's also not the complaints department; we shouldn't go running to Jimbo for every little thing. szyslak (t) 18:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
3. Per Fut. Perf. and szyslak. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
4. Too many people already run and post on his talk page as to general issues. I agree the parties don't need to do so here, but for knowledge of personal interest; which no one has shown. Kierzek (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist notices

Per Evan's suggestion. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree

1. To increase exposure. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
2. Agree (but I doubt it would get approved) Hot Stop (Edits) 03:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
3. As above. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
4. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 16:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Disagree

1. Nope, this is overkill. Come on people, remember that this "the/The" stuff is unimportant. It's trivial. People don't care. It's nice that we now have a working poll to solve it, but let's not forget that Wikipedia has more important things to solve than it. People hate it when their watchlists are spammed with unimportant things too often. Let's not push this trivial dispute into everybody's faces unnecessarily. Watchlist notices are only for things that are of crucial importance to the whole community. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
2. Per Fut. Perf. Maybe post at WP:CENT as an alternative, although I'm not sure it would be welcome there, either. CtP (t • c) 16:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
3. On principle, more exposure is a good thing. But a watchlist notice is too much. Watchlist notices should be for truly important issues that affect policy and practice in a major way. szyslak (t) 18:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

What does the Wikipedia MoS say about this matter?

Since it would appear that several !voters have a misunderstanding about how the current version of the Wikipedia MoS suggests we deal with definite articles in band names:

Our in-house style guide, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks states:

• "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'."

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Trademarks states:

• "Trademarks should be written in a way that follows standard English text formatting and capitalization rules."

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Capitalization states:

• "Standard English text formatting and capitalization rules apply to the names of bands and individual artists".

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) states that a lower-case definite article should be used in band names:

• "Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word 'the' should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g. 'Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues.'"

This one, was added by a user who prefers the lower case. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 21:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Did this user also edit every known style guide? Our MoS is in complete agreement with all others. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that there is an RfC underway at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks#Forcing UN-capitalization is wrong, and not widely-used about changing that as well. It's basically the general case of "The Beatles", applied to other given names, like products, services, and protocols, and extended to include the entire name, not just the special case of the article mid-sentence. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Capitalization states:

• In band names, and titles of songs or albums, capitalize all words except:

• articles (an, a, the)

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters says:

• "Generally do not capitalize the definite article in the middle of a sentence."

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Flags#Inappropriate use:

• "For example, with an English flag next to him, Paul McCartney looks like an 'English singer-songwriter from Liverpool who was in the Beatles'; without the flag next to him, he looks like an 'English singer-songwriter from Liverpool who was in the Beatles'".

The Wikipedia Manual of Style says:

• "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." That was this version, which uses "the".

Our MoS is clear and consistent. Absent a compelling reason to ignore the advice from our in-house style guide we should follow standard English text formatting. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Why this mediation will not affect other band articles

1. This is not an issue of concern at other band articles. Go to any with a definite article in their name and change some "t"s, there will not be a dispute like there is at the Beatles. I think this level of commitment is unique to Beatles fans.
2. If you filed a mediation case for the Who it would be denied for lack of process at said page. MedCom would not accept a case like this without the invoved parties having extensive discussions, RfCs and polls first.
3. This position seems to imply that one cannot get dispute resolution at a band page without also involving editors from other projects, which would seem to be a patently false assumption.
4. The Wikipedia MoS already tells all editors how to deal with a definite article in a band name. If editors at the Rolling Stones aren't MoS compliant that is their perogative. Any article with upper-case definite articles in a band name are already ingnoring the Wikipedia MoS. Why would an unrelated MedCom case hold more water than our current Mos does? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Gabe, and I personally don't see the need to run around looking for outside input in particular places. If it's going to be publicized anywhere else, it ought to be done so on a community-wide level. Running around to particular band articles is worryingly close to alarmism, and I believe it's already been established that the outcome of the poll will have no direct ramifications outside Beatles-related articles. If the issue comes up again then let others deal with it when and as they need to. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It's simple, spell it the way the band themselves did, just look at a photo of Ringo's drum.PumpkinSky talk 00:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

1) We are not changing the spelling, 2) the logo on Ringo's kit (primary source) is standing alone and not in running prose, 3) Wikipedia is based on secondary sources. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If we went with Ringo's Drum, the name would have to be spelled in two font sizes and all caps, as: "THE BEATLES"... which no one is seriously suggesting... so that is not a valid way to resolve the dispute. 01:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not a party to this mediation, but am aware of its existence...and I just saw that User:Andreasegde has notified over 100 pages of bands that have a leading "The" (capitalized) in the title. I have asked that editor to self-revert all of them. I don't know enough details to discern motive, but these notifications are either useless (because there is no carryover, as some are asserting above), or its an attempt to stack the discussion in favor of a certain position. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Qwyrxian, thank you for your post — the mediators are currently discussing how to proceed on this. In the meantime, we ask the parties to the mediation to please avoid discussing the incident on this page. Andreasegde's actions are external to the mediation, so the question of whether they were appropriate is a user conduct issue, rather than a mediation issue. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 00:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What do external style guides suggest? All known external style guides recommend using a lower-case definite article mid-sentence, including: The Oxford Style Guide (UK): "Beatles, the, a pop group, 1960-1970." (R. M. Ritter, 2003, p.633) The Times style and usage guide (UK) says: "Beatles, the, no need to cap the unless at the start of a sentence". (2003, p.24) The Guardian and Observer style guide (UK) says: "band names: lc the: the Beatles, the Killers, the The." The Chicago Manual of Style (16th edition, US) specifically uses "the Beatles" as an example and states: "A the preceding a name, even when part of the official title, is lowercased in running text." (2010, p.416) On page 92 of New Hart's Rules (Oxford, UK) there is a list of examples for the capitalization of names, one is "the Beatles", with a lower-cased definite article. New Hart's Rules also states: "Historians commonly impose minimal capitalisation on institutional references" and "minimise the use of capital initials where there is no detectable difference between the capitaized and the lower-case forms" and "overuse of capital initials is obtrusive, and can even confuse by suggesting false distinctions". (2005, p.90) Fowler's Modern English Usage (Oxford, UK), "a festival celebrating the music of the Beatles". (2004, p.293) Butcher's Copy-editing (Cambridge, UK) says "in a sentence the definite article should be lower-cased". (2006, p.241) Also in Butcher's: "too many capitals can be obtrusive and distracting for the reader." (p.126) The Duke University Style Guide (US) says: "Avoid unnecessary capitals." The UPI Style Book & Guide to Newswriting states: "Avoid unnecessary capitals." (Martin, Cook, 2004, p.40) From The Copyeditor's Handbook: "down style [lower-case] predominates in book publishing." (Einsohn, 2000, p.151) The Christian Writer's Manual of Style states: "The purpose of capitalisation is to show that a given word has a specialised or specific meaning rather than a general one ... avoid capitalisation whenever it is not needed for such purposes of specification". (Hudson, 2010, p.105) The Scout Association's style guide (UK) says: "the – Keep as lower case for bands (the Rolling Stones)." The Yahoo Style Guide says: "We recommend lowercasing 'the Beatles', except at the beginning of a sentence, for two main reasons: Reason No. 1: expedience. Lowercasing 'the' in every proper name makes life much easier. Reason No. 2: aesthetics. Lowercasing 'the' in every proper name also produces a consistent look—a look that, moreover, conforms to normal English usage. To the Yahoo editors, capitalizing 'the' in the middle of a sentence simply looks odd." ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC) how childish are you. There's already a massive evidence section that mentions these very style guides. So why repost this again? Hot Stop (Edits) 04:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC) Yet another unprovoked personal attack Hot Stop, and after the mediators asked us to not even address each other here just three short days ago. Remember, you said it was a good idea and agree in full? This pattern of abusive language is going to hurt your reputation long-term Hot Stop, I suggest yet again that you rethink your tactics. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC) Name-calling aside (which I must caution you for, Hot Stop) I see no real reason to repost evidence here. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:59, 24 September 2012 Well, one side has a massive wall of text arguing their side. Why not close those down as well, for parity? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC) (UTC)

An open discussion about external style guides

All known external style guides recommend using a lower-case definite article mid-sentence, including (click [show] to see)

The Oxford Style Guide (UK): "Beatles, the, a pop group, 1960-1970." (R. M. Ritter, 2003, p.633) The Times style and usage guide (UK) says: "Beatles, the, no need to cap the unless at the start of a sentence". (2003, p.24) The Guardian and Observer style guide (UK) says: "band names: lc the: the Beatles, the Killers, the The." The Chicago Manual of Style (16th edition, US) specifically uses "the Beatles" as an example and states: "A the preceding a name, even when part of the official title, is lowercased in running text." (2010, p.416) On page 92 of New Hart's Rules (Oxford, UK) there is a list of examples for the capitalization of names, one is "the Beatles", with a lower-cased definite article. New Hart's Rules also states: "Historians commonly impose minimal capitalisation on institutional references" and "minimise the use of capital initials where there is no detectable difference between the capitaized and the lower-case forms" and "overuse of capital initials is obtrusive, and can even confuse by suggesting false distinctions". (2005, p.90) Fowler's Modern English Usage (Oxford, UK), "a festival celebrating the music of the Beatles". (2004, p.293) Butcher's Copy-editing (Cambridge, UK) says "in a sentence the definite article should be lower-cased". (2006, p.241) Also in Butcher's: "too many capitals can be obtrusive and distracting for the reader." (p.126) The Duke University Style Guide (US) says: "Avoid unnecessary capitals." The UPI Style Book & Guide to Newswriting states: "Avoid unnecessary capitals." (Martin, Cook, 2004, p.40) From The Copyeditor's Handbook: "down style [lower-case] predominates in book publishing." (Einsohn, 2000, p.151) The Christian Writer's Manual of Style states: "The purpose of capitalisation is to show that a given word has a specialised or specific meaning rather than a general one ... avoid capitalisation whenever it is not needed for such purposes of specification". (Hudson, 2010, p.105) The Scout Association's style guide (UK) says: "the – Keep as lower case for bands (the Rolling Stones)." The Yahoo Style Guide says: "We recommend lowercasing 'the Beatles', except at the beginning of a sentence, for two main reasons: Reason No. 1: expedience. Lowercasing 'the' in every proper name makes life much easier. Reason No. 2: aesthetics. Lowercasing 'the' in every proper name also produces a consistent look—a look that, moreover, conforms to normal English usage. To the Yahoo editors, capitalizing 'the' in the middle of a sentence simply looks odd." ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Can any proponent of "The" make a good case here and now for completely ignoring all style guides in a dispute about style/orthography? Are Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge all wrong? Hart, Butcher and Fowler? The Encyclopedia Britannica? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• Because we can if we choose to do so and consensus forms that that is the way to go forwards. Sorry, but constantly filling this page with the same argument is both redundant and repetitive. It would go a lot easier if everyone could perhaps take a step back, respect that people have different opinions and just let the consensus form. Consensus does not consist of shouting the loudest; we should be striving for a collegiate atmosphere where people do not feel they have to strike their !vote because, with respect, people are so heated they're bandying about accusations of dishonesty and derailment.
• Wikipedians: If you've already edited this page three times or more, go fix some articles for the next three days; leave this page alone, let all those notices you've been posting do their work and attract Wikipedians here to comment. If this issue has been dividing the community for seven years, leaving it alone for three days can't hurt you; it could help the consensus. Relax; find red links and turn them blue. Come back Friday and soak in what people have left behind for you. Be bold and let others take a turn at lifting this heavy load a while. Happy editing, Hiding T 10:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• Just so we're clear, Gabe is the one who wrote much of the evidence for lowercase, including the style guide section. Hot Stop (Edits) 12:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• FTR, I didn't "write" the evidence, I researched and collected it. The style guides section is a collection of quotes, written by grammarians over several decades. I added the evidence to the section, but to say I "wrote" it is not accurate. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

New option: no rule

seems consensus is against this.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
About the new option of "having no standard" added by User:Ego White Tray [11]: Somebody reverted that addition arguing it was "not for you to add an undiscussed third option at this point". But I would respectfully ask to allow this addition to stand. The choice of the original two options was made during a closed process, between a small number of editors. If this new phase is to really be an "open" poll, for free participation by anyone, and not just an extension of that closed-circle negotiation, then it must be possible, as a matter of principle, to also express preferences for options the original participants didn't consider. The proposal of simply letting usage be varied is a perfectly logically consistent, possible option. I personally don't think it would be very useful, and I don't expect the proposal to gain much traction, but having it there can do no harm. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC) Are we going to allow anyone to add their own option to the poll and re-open the discussion on the content half way through the poll? How many new options will be added to the poll by individual users? Everyone can express their opinion along with their vote but the vote should be for one of the options presented, not by creating their own individually tailored options. And aren't editors supposed to refrain from branding others' opinions as "so stupid" or "so trivial"? Piriczki (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC) I agree with Piriczki. If the poll text changes during the process we open ourselves up to charges of confusion and disruption. Also, the mediators advised all parties to the mediation that the poll would not go live until the parties had reached agreement. Since no discussion for this third "option" occured during mediation, I argue that to allow it now is in fact to be in breach of the mediation agreement. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC) I have to agree with Piriczki and GabeMc, I also have to admit my lack of experience with this depth of involvement in such debates but, it seems, and I remember seeing such "side streets" being brought up at a latter point of a discussion. If we consider others options at this point would just confuse and add more lag to the discussion at this point, I remember a "Phase II" type addition to a discussion commencing after the original discussion ended. This would not slow down the live discussion and avoid adding confusion also, only adding a period of time to the overall process, but as I said I have little practical experience in such debates and I have not read all comments involved so my comment might be full of holes. Mlpearc Phone (Powwow) 22:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC) No moving of the goalposts, please. Rothorpe (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC) Who moved the goalposts in the MoS on 8 December, 2011, and then became a member of the mediation? Rothorpe did.--andreasegde (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC) I was partly responsible for the longtime position of the goalposts, and no one has moved them recently. I've commented in full on your insinuations on my talk page. Rothorpe (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC) No. Just, no. This is absurd. We went through week after agonizing week of working out the text of this poll, and it is not okay to come on board and want to change the whole dynamic of this RfC halfway through. The wording has been finalized and that's that. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC) I agree with the above. --Lukobe (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC) Its not news that about 1 in 10 editors think we should be willy-nilly about it, we have known this for many years. This is about Wikipedia looking professional (read consistent), and drawing from style guides on matters of style versus fansites. A mix looks obtrusive and amateurish, and I challenge anyone to find one high-quality WP:RS that uses this method. Puruse the sources at the Beatles, 80-90% of them use a lower-case definite article in accordance with all known style guides. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC) I actually agree here (sort of) we should strive to be consistent on Wikipedia, so a no-rule is a no-go for me. Let's just pick one and move on. Hot Stop (Edits) 12:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC) No to the proposal to add to the poll, and no to the concept itself. Hot Stop is right; let's pick one and be done. Jusdafax 23:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Moved from poll Support — As THE British band, all non-British !votes should be ignored; per WP:ENGVAR articles with strong national ties should use that country's variation of English, therefore Brits should determine their preferred variation of casing. You wouldn't expect us Brits to enforce whether Americans should be using "the Whitehouse" or "The Whitehouse", the same should apply here. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 09:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC) So how about the Oxford Style Guide? New Hart's Rules? Cambridge University Press? The Guardian? The Observer? The Times? Those aren't British enough for you? Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 12:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC) And for the "that's how it was" people, I'm British and used to read Disc, Melody Maker, Record Mirror and New Musical Express in the 60s and 70s. They all used "the Beatles". Rothorpe (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC) If the majority of British sources lean towards "the", so be it, I've simply voted "The" because it is my preferred option.. I sure as Hell ain't wading through this pathetically tendentious !vote all day looking for the most convincing argument. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 17:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC) So it turns out you really don't care what anyone says, no matter where they're from. Glad we cleared that up. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 22:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Incorrect. I just don't care, period, because I don't edit music articles often. But as a copy-editor, we all need to know where we stand. An article could have both "the" and "The" mixed in.. one has to know which to edit to make the article consistent. Otherwise, I'd just go with my preference. If 55% of British sources use "the" then it doesn't really matter, it's virtually 50:50. And I don't care about the 89% American sources because they have a whole different approach to spellings, punctuation and grammar which makes their opinion unrealistic to consider, IMHO. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 23:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC) I think at this point you can leave out the "H". Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 23:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Sorry, didn't realise you were having difficulty relating to it, maybe they forgot to pack some on the Mayflower? ;-) Ma®©usBritish{chat} 23:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC) You're kidding, right? So just because the Beatles are a British band, only British people are allowed to have an opinion on it? WP:ENGVAR (specifically, the section WP:TIES that you paraphrased) is not to be used to claim national ownership of an article. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Kidding? No. Dead serious. This doesn't relate to claiming "national ownership of an article", which is somewhat of a hyperbolical assumption on your part, the term "The Beatles" features in hundreds of articles, sometimes just a trivial mention.. but given that British English is "a language" it seems to me that British speakers should have priority. en-wiki editors don't go piling on de-wiki or ru-wiki or any other language wiki enforcing their grammatical preferences, and in this case the distinct preferences of Brits from other English-speaking nations should be considered first, given the strong (founding) national tie, and the same consideration to other countries. If you want to use "The Whitehouse", who am I to say otherwise, or a Canadian or an Aussie? Just because they "speak" English doesn't mean we share the same grammatical practices. I'll be damned if a non-Brit-weighted consensus is ever going to tell me how to spell things that originated in my country. And I doubt admins can ever uphold "the" or "The", simply because the sources are so equally split 50:50 that no one can ever be accused of using an incorrect format, OR, or anything unverifiable.. and the MOS is a "guideline" not a "policy" it can't be enforced by POV-pushers. This !vote is just a can of worms.. shit-loads of IP-editors edit Beatles articles daily, without knowing of or giving a damn about the MOS or this !vote outcome. So are admins really going to try to sanction dedicated registered members more over use of the single letter "T"... is ANI going to care about "editor X is using the wrong 'the'" reports? It's an utter waste of time and space, adding overhead and controversy where none exists. There's no solution, no way to enforce it, no way to punish anyone without being a tendentious POV-pusher, a bully who ignores AGF, or just plain sad. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 22:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Comment - Are you suggesting that Cambridge and Oxford are wrong? Hart, Butcher and Fowler? The encyclopedia Britannica? As far as "adding ... controversy where none exists". You really should read the archives at the Beatles before you make that assertion. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Take a look at New Musical Express - 2 September 1967 (London). ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Oxford calls itself a "Guide" – a guide, by definition is "A person who advises or shows the way to others." Advice isn't always right, showing the way doesn't mean you should always follow. Hart uses "Rules" – rules? Somewhat pretentious term; a dictator might use "these are my rules and you will follow them" but languages are too flexible to be "fixed" by any one presiding body. As for publishers and newspapers, they're like the MOS, they define their own preferred styles either based on tradition, popular use, guides, etc.. a mash-up, which hardly inspires a global following. If all newspapers used the "right" style, they'd all look identical.. they don't, because they're all subtly different. Styles can change or be altered with changing perceptions of language. So I'm neither calling them "right" or "wrong", simply that each edition/version of styles is a transition between styles that have gone before, leading to what is to now acceptable and to become a "considered" standard.. no English language is "locked" into one style. Think I'll pass on those archives, if people think a common 3-letter word needs to raise more fuss than Lennon's "bigger than Jesus" remark, or "Paul is dead" theories, then they need to get a life. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 22:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The "T" Party

After first endorsing the use of capital "T" ("We're the party of the Big Tent, capital 'T'"), candidate Mitt Romney later appeared to be walking back his comment. A campaign spokesman clarified Romney's remarks by saying: "The Governor misheard the question; he thought he'd been asked about upper class 'T', not upper case 'T'." But running mate Paul Ryan was overheard continuing the theme of Romney's first position on the subject; while campaigning in Iowa, Ryan said: "We're the party of big ideas, including big "T"s. Now's not the time for thinking small." Vice-President Joe Biden was quick to respond: "The President and I are on the side of the little guy, always have been, always will be." Biden continued in this vein, at a campaign stop in Iowa: "Our opponents are only interested in those with sufficient capitalization, but this country has never been about case warfare." When asked about Romney's comments, President Obama said: "Four years ago, I inherited a mess. Have we made progress? Yes. Are we where we want to be? No. One thing I've learned is that four years is not enough time to settle problems like this. This election is about two visions that couldn't be more different. So I call upon all Wikipedians to get out and !vote." When asked for his opinion, former President Bill Clinton summed up the issue by stating: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'the' is." Jburlinson (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Later, a video emerged showing Romney say he "doesn't care about the 47 percent" of T's not already in the upper case. Hot Stop (Edits) 19:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty funny Jburlinson and Hot Stop! Thanks for the much needed comic relief. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Lol, Mlpearc (powwow) 23:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Romney stated that in his estimation, the 47% of lower-cased "t"s are lazy, and not willing to capitalise themselves without Government assistance. Romney said they should learn self-capitalisation for the good of the economy. Romney also stated that before he was pro-upper case he was pro-lower case, before briefly flirting with the idea of a "context" based solution. He commented: "John and Paul were the Beatles who wrote the best songs, and I think The Beatles were a much better band then the Rolling Stones, The Who, or the Eagles." ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • If I'm not mistaken, Romney also said that when he instituted the lower-case t when he was governor, that was ok because it was just an experiment in one state, but when the President instituted it nationwide, that was bad because now there is no state to which one can go to be free of the "t"yrannical lower-case t, so in light of the ArbCom decision declaring the lower-case t mostly consistent with the taxation clause of Wikipedia policy (though not the commerce clause), we need to elect him president so he can revert, I mean repeal, the lower-case t. Or something like that. Neutron (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That's hilarious Neutron! Thanks for joining in our banter. Thanks again to Jburlinson for this breath of fresh air, its just what we needed here to break the tension. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Promising to institute the lower-case t in Massachusetts was only something he promised to do so he could defeat that notorious "pro-lower" ted kennedy (and later "pro-lower" opponents) anyways. The fact that he did institute it then showed how he delivered on his campaign promises and will continue to do so, according to Fox News, which was reported to be giving the defense of "Romney-t" reluctantly, considering Fox News' and Romney's vigorous opposition to "Obama-t". Fox News then referred to Romney's T-position as "evolving"; tune in to "t"he Daily Show with Jon Stewart Monday night for a hilarious ridiculing of Fox News for using the same terminology liberals have used regarding Obama's stance on same-case marriage, amid plenty of Plain White T's puns. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It's all a "t"issue of lies. You know you can't rely on Wikipedia if you are looking for "T"ruth. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

"the The Beatles" and just "Beatles"

There still seems to be some confusion here. A vote for lower case does not mean calling them just "Beatles", nor is anyone suggesting "the The Beatles". It would be nice if people would stop brandishing these canards. Rothorpe (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

the The

Mick Gold, please try googling the The and you'll see the band's logo. Rothorpe (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh no, as I pointed out above, the logos are irrelevant, as "Beatles" is registered both with and without "the/The." Please see here for confirmation. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree the logos are not relevant per se, but in the case of the The, it shows their attitude to their name. In the case of the Beatles, it is all upper case and thus means nothing. Rothorpe (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Trying to square the circle here. Either logos are relevant or they are not. A quick google search on The Beatles intimates that if we draw one conclusion for the The, we can draw another for The Beatles. My own preference is for a capital T. I think, on balance, the band are called The Beatles, not Beatles. Some bands do not use a definitive article, Cranes, for example. Since the name of the band includes "The", use a capital. All that said, I'm sure there's a real good reason why the side that can't win based on "a first major contributor" ruling won't submit to it which amounts to better than m:The Wrong Version. Maybe the next RFC could be is The Beatles article exempt from that part of the MOS. I have no idea how first contributor falls, by the way. Hiding T 12:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Aha, first contributor used a small t! Says so up the top. Get the feeling this RFC asked the wrong question. I'll get me coat. :) Hiding T 12:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• The Chicago Manual of Style (16th edition, US) specifically uses "the Beatles" as an example and states: "A the preceding a name, even when part of the official title, is lowercased in running text." (2010, p.416)(emphasis added) ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• the Beatles, except starting a sentence, when The Beatles. a Beatle for a band member, but the Beatle X when preceding his name.87.194.46.83 (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Get yourself a user name and !vote! Rothorpe (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I can vote as an IP, and did so above thank you Rothorpe.87.194.46.83 (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Rothorpe. I think you'll agree that the WP article does use "The The" mid-sentence throughout. I acknowledge the evidence is mixed. An article in today's Daily Telegraph on MMT [12] uses "The Beatles" twice mid-sentence and "the Beatles" once. I know what the Chicago Manual of Style (16th edition, US) says. I also know that I'll maintain to my dying day that my two favourite groups are The Beatles and The Band. Mick gold (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I would be quite happy for the The The article to use lower case "the The" throughout, Rolling Stone-style, but now seems a suitable time to remind people that the MoS says wikilinks can be upper, and I deliberately used upper when referring to the The The article (there, I've done it again), because article titles, being titles, have upper case. As in: "See The Beatles", meaning see the article, not the band. As for the Band, I like them too; not sure I've ever heard the The, though. Rothorpe (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Los Lobos

To pick up on Gentleman Ghost's point, what are the implications for Los Lobos? Hiding T 12:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to answer that and forgot. Usage is to capitalise all foreign definite articles. Rothorpe (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Okay. Can't say I'm comfortable with a delineation like that, would rather we capitalised in English as well as foreign, to be honest. But if that's the way the cookie crumbles... Hiding T 13:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Simple: Let the most common style in use by secondary sources dictate our style. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The indefinite article

I wonder what the outcome of this discussion will mean for bands like A Perfect Circle or A Murder of Crows... Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 03:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing. It's an entirely different type of case. In cases like "the Beatles" (just like in "the Bahamas", "the United States", etc.), the grammatical reason for the predominance of lowercase spelling is that the article is syntactically transparent – "Beatles" and "Bahamas" are formally plural nouns, and the whole phrase behaves syntactically exactly like any other definite plural noun phrase. That's different for "A Perfect Circle" – the name looks internally like an indefinite noun phrase, but of course, outwardly, it too behaves like a definite phrase, being a proper name. So, it is impossible to parse that as if the "A" was a normal article in the syntax of the embedding sentence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

TL;DR. It was a joke, dude. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 05:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Lower case

As someone who wants a capital 'T', I'm willing to concede that a lower 't' is going to be the outcome. I don't know how long you guys imagine this RFC running, but the numbers are tracking 2:1 in favour of lower case. I'm not going to change my !vote, because I support upper case, and I'm not going to argue numbers and declare consensus for or against a position. What I am going to do is add this comment as a reference point for the Wikipedian who draws the short straw to close this. At the end of the day, when there is no consensus, we fall back on style used by first major contributor; that's a lower case 't'. Hiding T 07:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I understand, it was determined in advance that the poll should run for 30 days (from 15 September), and an administrator responsible for closing it was also named in advance, so I guess the mediators will see to it that it just runs its course till then. Of course, the fact that the voting has constantly hovered around the 2:1 mark can hardly be overlooked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I'm not suggesting the 2:1 be overlooked, I'm expressing my opinion that this isn't just a numbers game. Regardless of where 2:1 sits in terms of consensus, the first major contributor is to me decisive. I'll respect that basis for closing as much as calling 2:1 a consensus, and I'll respect the two together. My belief here is that the onus is on "my side" to make the case and win the consensus, and I don't see that happening in however long is left. But there's obviously a lot of history I'm missing. Hiding T 08:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Just an aside - I wonder if "first major contributor" actually means first contributor - with all respect and thanks to the first editor, it appears he made a total of 10 edits over the first 3 years of the article, including what appears to be the (of course) significant creation in September 2001, of an article - a stub really - then consisting of under 5,000 characters. The article now has somewhere around 144,000. Is that opening edit what is meant by "first major"? And I'd ask this regardless of how that first edit read. Plus this was under discussion as long ago as Talk: The Beatles/Archive 1. My point is that it's not as straightforward a standard as it might appear, so Newyorkbrad has his work cut out for him. Tvoz/talk 21:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Still, with a 2 to 1 margin and generally more logical rationales, I think NYB will find this rather cut-and-dry. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

A brief history of "the"

• The first version, 26 September 2001. - Lower-case.
• One year later, 6 September 2002. - Lower-case.
• Two years laters, 11 September 2003. - Lower-case.
• Three years later, 4 September 2004. - Lower-case.
• Four years later, 1 September 2005. - Lower-case.(45,808 bytes)
• Five years later, 1 September 2006. - Upper-case.
• This appears to be the turning point where editors began pushing for an upper-case definite article mid-sentence.
• Which eventually lead to this AN/I report.

~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You inspired me to do my own sleuthing. User:Lion King, long departed, seems to be the instigator, in late 2005. Rothorpe (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh, nice work! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That sheds an interesting light on the assertion: "this has been going on for 7 years!" It would seem that now, we know why, and we know the source. The topper came in February 2007, when an editor began telling everyone that Wikipedia was obligated to follow Apple's TM, a patently false assertion since Wikipedia is not in anyway engaged in commerce. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the old trademark nonsense; and neither is it a British/American thing, as eventually arrived at in the conversation in your previous link. It's a best-practice thing, pure and simple. Rothorpe (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, now I've read the whole page. The usual arguments and the usual suspects, very telling. Rothorpe (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

As has been previously pointed out, "this has been going on for 7 years" would refer to the Talk page discussion that is found here: Talk: The Beatles/Archive 1#"The Beatles" or "the Beatles"?, dated to June 2004 - the first archive of the article talk page. This has been a question since the very earliest days of this article, and it had nothing to do with trademark or anyone "pushing" for anything - it was a difference of opinion. Tvoz/talk 03:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Would it be a difference of opinion if one group of editors suddenly wanted to ignore all known dictionaries and spell a particular word in a different and uncommon way? This dispute is centered on a question of style, thus the deference to style guides, just as you would look to a thesaurus for synonyms and antonyms. I still have not seen even one compelling argument why Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, should ignore all known style guides (including our own) in a dispute about style. In fact, proponents of "The" will hardly acknowledge that style guides exist, let alone discuss the issue in detail. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi GabeMC, Hi Tvoz. I tend, in part, to agree with Tvoz that this appears to be a difference of opinion. GabeMC, without changing your position on 'the', do you accept that Wikipedia builds an encyclopedia through consensus, and if Wikipedian editors consensually choose to do other than give deference to style guides that would be an acceptable thing to do? I'm not asking you to do so, I am asking you if you understand and accept the principle? As a proponent of 'The', I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge that style guides exist and to discuss the issue in detail. However, I see no understanding from you that Wikipedia is free to ignore other style guides and build its own. I haven't been on Wikipedia as long as it looks like this dispute has been running, but I've been here long enough to remember the end of the beginning, when people on Wikipedia were saying exactly that; we could ignore style guides and do what we wanted.

That said, where I do agree with you, GabeMC, and disagree, I think, with Tvoz, is that this dispute needs to end; it needs to end because we do things by consensus. And as I said earlier, regardless of the consensus up above, the current MOS states we should use 'the' because of the first usage. I've always liked that guidance, because it sums up an important life lesson; you win some and you lose some. It's also an important guideline for both sides to acknowledge and respect; if I respect it when it goes against how I'd like it done, I have more chance of it being respected when it goes for how I'd like things done, like Orange (colour). So that's why I'm saying this isn't just a numbers game. I don;t think this is a cut and dried close for NYBrad, who it appears still likes to tackle the thorny issues other admins like to run from :).

It's important to me that the right for Wikipedia to do as it chooses through consensus is maintained; that we do not have to defer to outside style guides if we do not choose to do so. I will respect any consensus to do as other style guides do, but I will always maintain that we can consensually do otherwise because that's just policy. I would hope the two sides in this debate can respect and achieve this understanding, of being able to hold two opposing positions in their heads at the same time. It's very liberating. Happy editing, Hiding T 09:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this needs to end too, Hiding - I am always sorry to see it being raised again, in fact. Of course I respect the concept of consensus, which is why I always point out that we reached consensus on this years ago - which was for the upper case - and then when a new brouhaha happened a compromise of minimizing the mid-sentence use of the band name was reached and lasted for about a year. I know that consensus can change, but having this brought up repeatedly seems to me more a matter of insisting on one's own position than actually representative of a true change in consensus, or a productive expenditure of time. And limiting the audience who are asked to comment seems to me to be a manipulation of the process and is disappointing, if what you want is a true community consensus. It is a matter of opinion, as I said, and I never thought it was an Earth-shaking matter at that. Tvoz/talk 19:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has the right to form its own house style, but in the presence of so much consensus in external style guides, going against the grain would be a mistake. The great majority of style guides for English writing recommend minimizing capital letters in this instance. A few are even specific about the case of "the Beatles".

The earlier article consensus for capitalization was just as much a matter of insisting that one's preference should be allowed. That has not changed.

Limiting comment to established users is the best defense against gaming the system. Binksternet (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree about limiting to established users, Binksternet - that's not what I was referring to. I was talking about limiting where we post notices that this mediation is going on, so we can hear from people with an interest in the subject but not a part of this ongoing disagreement. The mediation was set up, as you know, with the directive that we seek "as wide a community involvement as possible, and anyone who wishes to further publicize the poll may do so". (per Feezo, one of the mediators, above). This was significantly pulled back to actually remove notices that were posted by editors on both sides of the dispute on pages of other bands, where there are editors who might indeed have an opinion on this, as they edit articles similar to this very large group of Beatles-related articles, and many have dealt with variations on the issue with differing results. That is what I find disappointing - we should have stuck by the foundation of the mediation and encouraged comments from as wide a group as possible. Tvoz/talk 20:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point. Binksternet (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

So do I. Watchlist notices would have completely neutralised this concern but Feezo said it was a ridiculous idea and we shouldn't bother uninvolved editors with this lame dispute. As it is, 120 !votes isn't too shabby. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I've asked Feezo to revisit the idea for the last week of the poll, so hopefully it could still happen. And I'm glad we all agree that Wikipedia can write its own style guide based on consensus of the community. Hiding T 10:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I never suggested a Watchlist notice - I was talking about notifications to music articles, as stated above. Watchlist might be seen as overkill for such a minor issue, but if Feezo thinks he can get it approved because of implications for MoS, I don't object. The end date might have to be adjusted, however, depending on how long it takes to get approval. It is true that there are many, many articles that could be affected - see The Supremes, for example, as just one of the many articles that use the upper case T mid-sentence, because the name of the band includes the The. Tvoz/talk 07:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist rfc notice

Feezo has agreed to oversee an "official" request for a watchlist notice mentioning this RFC, so if interested parties can work quickly to draft a short notice that would perhaps square the circle of widest pool of participants a little neater. Here's my stab:

• Editors are invited to comment at an RfC to assist in gauging current community consensus in regard to whether to upper- or lower-case the definite article ("the") mid-sentence when referring to the band also known as the "Fab Four".

Any tweaks, improvements, better attempts? Hiding T 19:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the proposed text. Hiding and GabeMC, are you going to provide any background/rationale on MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details in addition to the proposed notice? If so, it should be drafted here first since the request is kind of a "one-shot" attempt. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

This is all Hiding. I've already been properly shot-down in this regard. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Gabe, I'd appreciate your input here if you are still willing to give it regardless of being shot down in the past. I'm only pushing this because of the comments above by yourself and Tvoz. I don't know the whole background, so perhaps I'm not the best person to ask, but here's a stab:

• Rationale - The RfC will remain open until 00:00 UTC 15 October 2012. In the interests of garnering the widest consensus possible, and ending a time-intensive and long-running dispute, (which began in earnest in late 2005) we hope that by advertising the RfC to the widest possible Wikipedia audience, the RfC's closer will be better able to evaluate and declare if a clear consensus has indeed been arrived at and in the broadest way possible. One week of Watchlist notices will help the community form a lasting consensus that will be far more likely to put this matter to rest long-term.

But again, that's just a rough draft open to interpretation, and it's time for me to go to bed. If Gabe and Tvoz don't think it is worth attempting, I'm perfectly happy to concede the try as unnecessary. Hiding T 22:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure I'll help Hiding. I'll be happy to assist in the draft as long as you take the reigns in regard to the actual request. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to change 'capitalising' to 'whether to upper- or lower-case' in the interests of neutrality. I don't want people to think we are suggesting caps as a nice idea. Rothorpe (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed Rothorpe. Fine suggestion. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it might be helpful if the rationale rebuts the inevitable "but this isn't an important issue" by discussing the potential implications for the manual of style. (Although my views on the notice haven't changed, if there's going to be a request, I would like to give it the best possible shot.) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 05:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Feezo, perhaps you would be so kind as to take a couple runs at it, adding what's needed and trimming what's not, but get it filed asap if you want a full week of notices. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Gabe, you alright with this? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the sentence, Although some may consider this issue unimportant, the fact is that a substantial minority (1:2) of respondents have expressed an opinion contrary to Wikipedia's manual of style should be removed or reworded. The indication of how the vote is going could prove to be counterproductive and could be conceived as loading the vote. There are other considerations, too, having called in the wider community then perhaps the result should affect the wider articles too? Please note I am here because of one of the removed notices from last time. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I took it out. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 07:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little worried about the notice, in that it does not resolve or even clarify one of the fundamental ambiguities of this entire controversy -- which concerns the implications and consequences with regards to all other bands whose names are of the form "The __________." It's clear that some people consider this mediation, and hence the entire dispute, to have relevance only to The Beatles. It's also clear that many other people believe that the issue has a larger scope and is relevant to all bands with similar-type names. I don't believe we have ever clearly and definitively specified the parameters of the dispute. (The entire sidebar on "The The" is evidence of the confusion.) Until and unless this is nailed down, there will always be uncertainty as to exactly what the results of the poll will signify. What does a !!vote for upper or lower case mean? Does a !vote for uppercase, for example, mean that all other bands should follow the MoS and only articles about The Beatles should use uppercase? (Personally, I really doubt that this is what the !voters believe.) OR, does it mean that all articles on bands with names like "The _______" should use uppercase? (I, myself, think this is what most uppercase !votes mean.) Similarly, does a !vote for lowercase mean that articles on all bands should follow the MoS, or does it mean that articles on The Beatles shouldn't be singled out for special treatment? It's not clear. For this reason, I'm not sure that when the dust of this poll has settled, we will be able to "put this matter to rest long term." Jburlinson (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This applies only to the Beatles, so a vote for lower case should lay the whole business to rest (including the The); a vote for upper case will no doubt lead to moves to rewrite the MoS. Rothorpe (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

If this applies only to The Beatles, how would it affect The The at all? Your comment that this will impact "the whole business" is just an illustration of the fact that more than only The Beatles is at stake. Once again, though, it may be your opinion that only Beatles articles are affected, but I don't believe that is a shared understanding among all !voters. Jburlinson (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It would not affect the The because the MoS already specifies lower case. The poll is about making an exception of the Beatles. You are no doubt right that a !vote for upper case would be interpreted as a desire to change to upper case for all "the" bands, but that would entail rewriting the MoS, as I see it. Rothorpe (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right, Rothorpe, about what the MoS currently says on this, although it hasn't always read that way. And perhaps as a result, the articles for bands with "The" names are now all over the place, internally as well as between them. But I think JBurlinson is exactly right that voters on either side do not necessarily have the same understanding of what this affects - regardless of how it was originally conceived - and that is a problem that we should address. Tvoz/talk 04:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to address it. But I no longer think such a poll is viable. Its import is, as you say, too vague in one sense and too specific in another (the Fab Four). Leave the MoS as it is, or go with the style guides and have it specify the Rolling Stones, the Who, the The, the Beatles in all cases. Rothorpe (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jburlinson, the !voters (no matter how confused) do not, and will not determine the lasting impact of the poll, the community will. You keep saying that this will spread to other articles but who will spread it? Do you really think someone else will go through this 4 month fiasco again? If so then who? Anyway, its not even an issue of course, its just more strawman scare tactics of a losing side. Please, go to any band page with a "the" in their name and start changing some "t"s around, you will quickly see that this is not the issue elsewhere as it is at Beatles articles. "The" is most certainly going to lose at this point, that's a forgone conclusion. So now its, "lets fall back on, 'this applies to everyone', 'lets scare everyone into thinking that the MoS might actually be enforced at all articles! Oh dear!'". A very simple Question - Does the Wikipedia MoS apply to all articles on Wikipedia? If so why, if not why not? What in the world would need to be changed in our MoS due to this mediation? Rothorpe is absoulutely correct, the only MoS concern would have been only if "The" won, which it won't, so your point is again moot and your attempts to mislead, misinform and distract editors and !voters are once again falling short. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC) GabeMc, once again you have insulted me with a personal attack about "misleading, misinforming and distracting" and employing "scare" tactics: even after you promised not to do so any more on Feezo's talk page. Your chronic lack of civility is probably the most memorable thing about the strange interlude that this mediation has become. Jburlinson (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC) To me, the most memorable thing about this strange interlude is your bizarre reasoning and obvious spin doctoring. I am all out of good faith for you Jburlinson. Its now quite clear to me that all you have ever wanted is to confuse this matter further. BTW, I noticed that you skipped over about 12-15 editors who supported "the" when you went around notifing people for Feezo. You skipped people in the same poll in which you notified the above and below supports for "The". The archives don't lie, and neither does your contributions list. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC) Can't let that last one go without a response. The only reason I didn't notify past supporters of lowercase "the" was because you already had. You had systematically notified all the lowercase advocates and conveniently neglected the others. Since you're so fixated on the minutiae of the archives, let me point out that my first round of notifications was to everyone who had responded in an earlier discussion, regardless of what their original opinion had been. The only people I didn't notify were those who had already !voted -- so why should I bother them again? BTW -- I informed Feezo, and anyone else you was interested, including you, as to exactly who I had contacted. Did you? Jburlinson (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC) Another lie. I never notified anyone until after I noticed that you had skipped them! The archives do not lie even though you certainly, and regularly do. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC) Proof: Jburlinson, you completed your first set of individual notices at 21:25 17 Septmeber 2012. I didn't make any individual notices until two days later, and after having noticed that you were WP:Votestacking. See here. See, when you use actual evidence to support your claims they are often more believable. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Feezo, but I can't let this pass. JBurlinson raised a good point -here, in a polite and respectful manner, and his exchange with Rothorpe was useful and also polite and respectful on both of their parts, even though they disagree. I saw it and was going to come in and comment on the issue too - it's an important point of this discussion that I think we should be talking about. The conversation deteriorated immediately after that, and it is plain to see where and by whom - by hatting the entire exchange you're not allowing a discussion of whether any watchlist notice should say that this could have an impact on other articles - as you wanted to include all along, thus ending the discussion and giving the point to one side of the dispute. I think the hat should be moved to below Rothorpe's 20:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC) comment. Let's be fair here. Tvoz/talk 02:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I've moved the tag. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Tvoz/talk 04:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

• Parties interested in requesting a watchlist notice are invited to comment on this proposed text. Only comments that propose a specific change will be considered.
• I am posting this request on behalf of several participants at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles, which is presently hosting a public RfC. I have been asked, as case mediator, to request a watchlist notice — I do not endorse it. The notice and rationale, drafted by the participants, follow:

Editors are invited to help reach a consensus regarding whether to upper- or lower-case the definite article ("the") mid-sentence when referring to the band also known as the "Fab Four"

• Rationale - The RfC will remain open until 00:00 UTC 15 October 2012. In the interests of garnering the widest consensus possible, and ending a time-intensive and long-running dispute, (which began in earnest in late 2005) we hope that by advertising the RfC to the widest possible Wikipedia audience, the RfC's closer will be better able to evaluate and declare if a clear consensus has indeed been arrived at and in the broadest way possible. One week of Watchlist notices will help the community form a lasting consensus that will be far more likely to put this matter to rest long-term.

Request made at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details#Beatles RfC. Regards, Hiding T 09

14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hiding posted the request (although I thought Feezo was going to do it when satisfied with the wording) and then withdrew it based on comments by two editors who had expressed their opinions against it already here. As I said over there - please don't withdraw this request based only on the opinions of two involved editors. The idea was to see what other members of the community have to say - again, I don;'t know if this will be approved, and it was not my choice of how to best widely disseminate the notification to editors who have some knowledge of these types of problems - but withdrawing the request based on no new input doesn't make sense to me. We spent some time discussing the idea of a watchlist notice - at least let other editors comment on it. Tvoz/talk 19:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want to continue the request, I recommend you collapse Hiding's post with {{cot}}/{{cob}}, then repost it with under your name in the same place. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be better if we followed what we said we were going to do, which was you posting it as mediator, with the caveat you attached at the top of this section. Your call. Tvoz/talk 19:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I've re-opened the request and added an explanatory note. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Feezo! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I apologise to Tvoz for posting the request rather than Feezo, it was done at Feezo's suggestion. I withdrew the request because I did not believe it would find enough support in the time remaining to be of any utility. I apologise and withdraw from the matter. Regards, Hiding T 08:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologize to me Hiding - it's all good. Tvoz/talk 00:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

More history of "the/The"

You can see a brief history of this dispute at these links:

• 2004: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_1#.22The_Beatles.22_or_.22the_Beatles.22.3F
• 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Policy#.27.22The.22_vs._.22the.22.27_thread_moved_from_Talk:The_Beatles
• 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_12#.22The_Beatles.22_redux
• 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_18#The_vs._the
• 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_19#Official_spelling_.22the_Beatles.22
• 2009: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_21#Capitalization.E2.80.94use_of_.22The.22_mid-sentence
• 2009: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_23#Capital_T
• 2010: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_25#the_or_The.3F
• 2011: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive680#The_Beatles
• 2012: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_28#.22The.22_or_.22the.22_in_quoted_band_names
• 2012: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_30#.22The.2Fthe.22_discussion_and_straw_poll_July_2012

~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Gabe. Let's hear it for Espoo, McTavidge, Wrapped in Grey, PL290, McLerristar, Silk Tork, Hans Adler, etc. Where are they now? Tired of the monotonous cries of "This is so WP:LAME. Time to move on. End of." etc.? Rothorpe (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

With any luck we will reach the final page of this drama very soon. My best wishes to all who have sought to bring Wikipedia into the consensus view of a vast majority of exterior sources. Jusdafax 05:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Why did it take 8 years? AnotherSkierDude (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Article in the Wall Street Journal

Is everyone aware that there's a reporter from the WSJ who is writing an article on this mediation? Apparently, she's interviewing some of us for our take on the situation. Depending on what that article is like, we may be getting a lot more people out there wanting to weigh in on the subject. Jburlinson (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Who's the reporter? Did she interview you? If so, what did you say? SMP0328. (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I was told about this, seems legit. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 19:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Me too. Rothorpe (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Can't recall the reporter's name -- can't get to my emails at the moment. I think I'm scheduled to talk to her tomorrow. Whatever I say, I'll be trying to make Wikipedia look good. Jburlinson (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted some more information. I wasn't questioning what Jburlinson said. I wonder why this reporter is writing about this mediation, as opposed to another mediation or Wikipedia's mediation process in general. SMP0328. (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

My understanding, after having chatted via e-mail with Miss Chaudhuri, is that the WSJ article is going to be about this mediation and dispute, not Wikipedia disputes in general. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• WSJ article. - "Editors Won't Let It Be When It Comes to 'the' or 'The'". Enjoy, and FTR, I said I was the defacto leader of the lower-case faction. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to say, that's a fairly well written piece that seems to get most of the details correct, even pointing out the ideas of talk pages and the community poll. Hopefully this won't lead to a flood of comments in the poll from people who don't know how Wikipedia makes decisions like this (and she didn't link to the poll, so that at least helps), but at least there aren't wild accusations of inappropriate treatment, cabalism, and the like (except for some specifically attributed to certain editors). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. However, she did link to the poll, the Beatles talk page, and the Beatles article. It will be interesting if we get a flood of views and/or comments. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The WSJ is running its own poll. Results as of this moment, with 197 votes -- uppercase winning 75% to 25%. Jburlinson (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Except what that poll asks is: "Should Wikipedia's entry be for "The" Beatles or "the" Beatles?" which implies that the question is about the title of the page; what the poll should say is "Should Wikipedia use "the Beatles" or "The Beatles" when referring to the band in mid-sentence?" RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The WSJ poll has nothing to do with the question here. It has worded the question as if it were the title of the article in dispute, or so it appears to me. Bielle (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The article makes it clear that the issue involves mid-sentence usage. The poll is attached to the article. The people are speaking. Jburlinson (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The lady at the WSJ says they ran the poll without telling her. She'll mention it on Monday... Rothorpe (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Mention it to whom? The WSJ? What would it do then? Jburlinson (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Jburlinson, didn't you promise/agree to the mediators formal request to not respond to Rothorpe during this mediation? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought you weren't talking to me anymore. Jburlinson (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Rothorpe, RedSoxFan2434 and Bielle. The WSJ poll is asking people to !vote on the title of the article, not on mid-sentence usage of the band name. As such it is totally irrelevant to our discussion here, kinda like 90% of the "evidence" for upper-case above ... lol. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• What I find amusing is that the WSJ's own style guide is oddly lopsided: "The Wall Street Journal uppercases the "the" in its own name but lowercases it for other publications." — Coren ^(talk) 20:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think it has to do with the WSJ wanting to excessively glorify itself while denying that to its competitors. The only "good" reason to cap the definite article is to draw more attention to the proceeding proper noun. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Though it isn't abbreviated to either "tWSJ" or "TWSJ"..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• To whom it may concern: I apologize for addressing a remark to Rothorpe. I had forgotten whom I could and could not communicate with. Life is so complicated. Jburlinson (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Jburlinson, I was only kidding around. I'm sure Rothorpe doesn't mind you replying to him. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I found User:Tvoz's comment interesting and alarming, blaming Wikipedia disputes on gender bias: "an overabundance of testosterone running around the pages." Imagine if I said this dispute would have been settled years ago if it weren't for so many women editing Beatles articles. Or what if I had said that estrogen is well-known to cause Wikipedia editors to be snarky, dishonest and uncompromising? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I recommend not using this page a place to comment on what people said in the article; it will only inflame things more. What a person chooses to say to the media is at their own discretion. In any event, what Tvoz said is no different than what senior members of the Foundation have themselves been saying for years. If you want to take it up, I'd recommend Tvoz's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Qwyrxian, but blaming wikipedia disputes on testosterone is sexist. Had Tvoz blamed it on race, we would all be freaking-out right now, or at least I would be. AnotherSkierDude (talk) 09:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree with Qwyrxian, and with Tvoz for that matter. The Wikimedia Foundation has been very up front about the severe gender imbalance in the project, and coverage of this situation has been widespread, including The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. Considering your insistence on reliable sources, I'd say that Tvoz's comment in the article was amply justified, and stated wittily to boot. Jburlinson (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• The WSJ poll is now at 733 votes, with 76% favoring uppercase. Jburlinson (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Like 90% of the "evidence" you added to the mediation poll, the WSJ stat is 100% irrelevent to this mediation. Anyone with half a brain knows the WSJ did not ask the correct question. Your attempts to sway the results of the poll fell way short, and now your attempts to cast aspersions as to the validity of the poll are also falling short. Now its time to move on and start getting used to lower-case "t"s! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Good thing reality doesn't take a vote, yes? :) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Gabe, while you are correct that the question asked by the WSJ poll is not the same as the question asked here (and even if it were, Wikipedia doesn't make decisions based on third party polls) — I'd appreciate it if you would either remove or strike the "half a brain" and "attempts to sway" comments. I know that emotions are running high as we wrap things up here, but there's really no way Jburlinson can't be expected to respond to something like that. So, in the interest of keeping things from degenerating while Newyorkbrad makes his decision, I have to ask you to remove it. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Feezo, for acknowledging that Newyorkbrad will make his determination, not GabeMc, or anyone else here, try as they might to announce what the outcome is. If nothing else, it is rude to Newyorkbrad who agreed to step in, and the participants here who agreed to participate in something that would be reviewed by a respected uninvolved person. I seem to recall something about consensus, which does not mean majority vote. And I would remind everyone that even the MOS is a guideline calling for common sense, not a policy, and certainly not one of the five pillars. Which is why it has always seemed to me that context, not rigid adherence to a rule, should be what was the determinant - in this dispute and in others.

As for the WSJ poll, the point is not that they would determine anything here, but what ought to be considered is that they represent our readers - not folks knee deep in defending their positions here, some with what appears to be a great deal invested in the outcome - and as such it is instructive to hear how they view the matter of what the name of the band is.

Finally, I of course said a lot more to the reporter than just that quote (and thanks JBurlinson, for seeing the wit in my shorthand) but my comment - which I totally stand behind - is said from the perspective of being a part of a tiny disproportionate minority, who recognizes that there are differences between women and men in their approach to dispute resolution. Indeed, as noted by Qwyrxian, concern about this disproportion is something that Jimmy Wales and many Foundation folk, and editors, have talked and written a lot about - Jimmy and I have corresponded about it, in fact. Editors on Wikipedia are far from proportional to the population, and I didn't originate the idea that dispute resolution would be different if women were equally involved. (I see a similar problem in Congress,as has been noted by female Senators and Representatives, if that makes people feel better.) Race is quite different - first, I do not think race determines anything other than how we are treated by society, and second, I am not a member of a racial minority working on Wikipedia. If I were, I might see things that those in the majority don't see. As a member of the majority, I'd be listening to what the minority said, not freaking out at anything, other than at our shortcomings.Tvoz/talk 07:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

New primary evidence for lower-case

Look here. From a new book, The John Lennon Letters. "I think Paul and I are the best judges of our partners," Lennon wrote, less than politely. "Just look at the world charts and, by the way, I hope Seatrain is a good substitute for the Beatles." If Lennon wanted to use "the Beatles" way back then, who are we to tell him he was wrong? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, his editor/publisher wanted to, at any rate. Bielle (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

How about a hand-written letter by Lennon, dated March 1970, from page 351 of the Beatles Anthology (2000), which uses a lower-case definite article both times the band is mentioned in running prose? Can this also be blamed on Lennon's editor? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The actual typewritten letter reveals multiple MoS violations! In particular, he uses spaced endashes, half-spaced endashes, and (typewriter-simulated) spaced emdashes, with no rhyme or reason! So clearly he is discredited and whatever he does regarding the 20th letter of the alphabet has no bearing here on this momentous decision. (Sigh ... if only he were alive today to see all this ... what would he think? ... I have to think some inventive, profanity-laced but still-humourous screed would come forth ... or maybe a sequel to "Glass Onion" ...) Wasted Time R (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If he were here today? He would have a good laugh at all the "fans" who think that a lower-case "t" is somehow a disgrace to the band. He would !vote lower-case, I am quite sure of that! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as "multiple MoS violations", well, the Big Letterists don't give a hoot about any style guides that's for sure. I have yet to even discuss them with a proponent of "The", because they simply will not go there. Kinda like refusing to look at a dictionary in a dispute about spelling. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Gabe, for chrissake, can you please just stop re-arguing your case all the time? You said what you had to say, many times over; many agree with you; why can't you just leave it at that and let this thing run its course? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

1) No need to blaspheme. 2) I posted newly discovered evidence, then two editors came to discuss it. This is a talk page, that's what its for. Why not tell Wasted and Bielle the same thing? 3) This is likely the very last time I will ever discuss this massive time-waster, which was pushed on me by the Big "T" peeps, so yeah, I will say what I have to say. It will be over soon. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• BTW - IMO, Espoo really nails it above in what is perhaps the best rationale yet. Well said! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and on the subject of capitals in general, I agree that compact disc should be lowercased, and would add new wave, a curious anomaly. Rothorpe (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree Rothorpe. Me thinks a change is gonna come! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:30, 10 October 2012 (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.