Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks/Archive 11
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Stylization vs. reliable sources
I'm wondering what to do when an article name contains a stylization, but still reliable sources use that stylization. It was rejected at Talk:Kesha#Move request, now brought forward again at Talk:Wham!#Move request, and I think I've seen it quite often in similar discussion, so I'd like to know if reliable sources matter in such cases or if our decision to use or not use a stylized article title is independent from how reliable sources do it. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Generally, we seem to stick to our own consistent style (which is itself informed by reliable style sources) and defer to reliable sources about a subject only for the facts about that subject. There are different philosophies about this sort of thing, though, so there is usually some tension in these discussions. For some reason, we seem to defer to sources more often when the stylization is to use too much lowercase. I don't know what to tell you about the reluctance to move Wham!->Wham; I certainly see your point about being inconsistent. Ke$ha is arguably more objectionable than Wham!, but still. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, that's what I thought, too, and which makes most sense IMO. I mean, it's certainly never a bad thing to look at what reliable sources call an artist (or similar), but I feel we shouldn't let us dictate the article titles by that. Besides that even the sources that are considered reliable (which is really another thing for itself), even if they are actually reliable which should be true for most times, it may just be that the different context of a reliable source (e.g. newspaper, magazine, book) allows to use the stylized version of an artist. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW, Yahoo! is Yahoo!. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, that's what I thought, too, and which makes most sense IMO. I mean, it's certainly never a bad thing to look at what reliable sources call an artist (or similar), but I feel we shouldn't let us dictate the article titles by that. Besides that even the sources that are considered reliable (which is really another thing for itself), even if they are actually reliable which should be true for most times, it may just be that the different context of a reliable source (e.g. newspaper, magazine, book) allows to use the stylized version of an artist. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
RFC – WP title decision practice
Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of WP:Article Titles policy. That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes. An RFC entitled: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy. As a project that has created or influenced subject specific naming conventions, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the RFC.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
non standard capitalization / spelling.
so soapbox is the primary potential danger, here? I don't think a non-standard english punct/ capitalization necess entails promotion of some entity or 'subject over another'. it's a bit more serious when choosing the correct title for an article. that's understandable.
but given the size & scope of wikipedia today, what the f does promotion of one 'subject over another' even mean? I think it would depend what page you start on when determining what's appropriate to link to/ draw readers attention to/ 'promote' next.
when reading any wikipedia passage for info, once you consume a sentence or paragraph, the question is: where do you go next, in the natural search for actual information? I am still under the assumption that that is what we all are pretty much doing when we visit 'pedia- getting info. not picking a fave brand/ shopping.
sure, if we open the door to non-standard english punct/ capitalization, it could get out of hand, but -- well, I thought 'tumblr.' was OK. is that too far gone or what? any thoughts? thanks. skakEL 19:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Non-standard titles and "stylized" renditions
This discussion began with a series of page moves to a non-standard title. They were reverted per WP:MOSTM. In compromise I appended <Band Name> (stylized as <band name>) which was also reverted per the same policy. The scope requires a broader discussion than the article talk page allows. The RFC has been moved here at the behest of IllaZilla, the editor who first objected to my contributions. Please consider the discussion; and append your regards to the following questions:
- Is it ever appropriate to title an article about a band according to non-standard convention? If so under what circumstances? If not briefly state why?
- When would it be appropriate to show the "stylized" rendition prominently in the lead as shown in Kesha?
- Is the policy governing article titles for band names adequate or should it be clarified further?
- Relevant policy: Article titles; Capital letters; Capitalization; Naming; Capitalization; Artwork (related to branding); Considering title changes; Deciding on an article title; Trademarks; Items that require initial lower case
Thank you for considering this content discussion in the context of dispute resolution. - My76Strat (talk) 08:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments
|
- Argh. This is dirt-simple, folks. Put it at plain English and explain the typographic silliness in the lead. See Client (band) and Spinal Tap (band) for examples. If people insist (as they do at the real article title that Motley Crue redirects to and which I can't be bothered to find special characters for) on enforcing purely diacritic character distinctions in article titles, let them. We also do this for personal names (see where Gulsen Degener redirs to, for example). No one cares, and you have better things to spend your time on. If people want to push non-diacritic character changes, like moving Client (band) to CLIEИT to match their album covers, then strongly resist. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 21:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- That's sort of what led us here in the first place: My76Strat moved every Blink-182 related article to have a lowercase b ("blink-182") in the title, against this MoS, and I moved 'em back. He insists, then, that we acknowledge the lowercase in the opening sentence: "Blink-182 (stylized blink-182)...". I think that's just stupid, totally unnecessary, and reeks of (for lack of a better term) fan-ishness. No one besides hard-core fans cares that the band's name is often typeset with a lowercase b. It's certainly not something that needs to be blared out in the first sentence of an encyclopedia article about them, right after their name and in bold typeface; It does nothing to help a reader understand who Blink-182 is. It's especially annoying because it's something seen all over musician articles: anytime an artist uses lowercase or a backwards letter or something, editors/fans seem to think this "artistic intent" needs to be loudly declared right at the very beginning of the article, as if we must be certain readers know they often use a lowercase b. It just makes lead sentences read like fansites, at least to me anyway. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Moving the articles and trying to emulate the band's typography is pointless and against MOS. Writing "Blink-182 (stylized blink-182)..." or something to this effect in the lead is perfectly normal. It's sourceable and noteworthy information, and "what we do" in cases like this. See Client and Spinal Tap examples above and most everything else mentioned at metal umlaut, just for starters. It would be downright weird to never mention that the band always spells it "blink-182". It's simply not true that no one cares about it just because you don't. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 02:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well said. I concur. Dicklyon (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- On second thought, after making the change, and then reverting myself for being unable to find any evidence of the lower-case styling, I'd like to ask what's the basis for saying they style their name that way. Just their painted logo? It hardly counts if no secondary source has picked up on that. Dicklyon (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed; I was assuming that the assertion that [b|B]link-182 always spells their name that way was valid (I don't know anything about that band, really). The other examples I cited I do know about. 'Kesha...stylized as "Ke$ha"...' is another good example (at least going by current data; for all we know, she might abandon that style with the next album and we know facts about notable people are often moving targets, more generally). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 10:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- SMcCandlish, I disagree that it's "noteworthy". If we noted every artist name/tv show/album title/etc. that appeared in all-lowercase in the relevant logo/title card/album sleeve/etc. it would be a ridiculous amount of "(stylized as...)" side notes across thousands of articles (and imagine if we did the same for the all-caps cases...). Backwards lettering or use of umlauts is a less common occurrence, and represents a more convincing case that the text has been "stylized" in some way; it's debatable whether simply not using any capital letters is "stylization", since it doesn't involve the alteration of any normal English characters (use of foreign characters, inverted/reversed characters, leet, etc.). Perhaps I shouldn't be so general as to say "no one cares"; What I mean is "merely noting that a name is often typset in all lowercase, while it may be true, is pedantic and doesn't serve to help a reader understand what the subject of the article is, so placing it so prominently in the lead sentence seems undue."
- Dicklyon, My76Strat has made the argument that there are secondary sources that generally typeset the name in all-lowercase (mainly Allmusic), but I don't think that their doing so means we need to make special note of it in article leads. And while a majority of the band's album covers over the years have typeset the name in all-lowercase, there is a great deal of merchandise and branding that doesn't (by way of personal example, I own 2 of the band's t-shirts from different periods in their career and both render the name in all-caps, as does the cover of their most recent album which also drops the hyphen and reverses the N). And I might argue that to make special note of it, it would take more than a secondary source just "picking up on it" (aka also typesetting it in lowercase); The source would have to make note of it in some way to show that the "stylization" is somehow noteworthy. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Moving the articles and trying to emulate the band's typography is pointless and against MOS. Writing "Blink-182 (stylized blink-182)..." or something to this effect in the lead is perfectly normal. It's sourceable and noteworthy information, and "what we do" in cases like this. See Client and Spinal Tap examples above and most everything else mentioned at metal umlaut, just for starters. It would be downright weird to never mention that the band always spells it "blink-182". It's simply not true that no one cares about it just because you don't. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 02:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- That's sort of what led us here in the first place: My76Strat moved every Blink-182 related article to have a lowercase b ("blink-182") in the title, against this MoS, and I moved 'em back. He insists, then, that we acknowledge the lowercase in the opening sentence: "Blink-182 (stylized blink-182)...". I think that's just stupid, totally unnecessary, and reeks of (for lack of a better term) fan-ishness. No one besides hard-core fans cares that the band's name is often typeset with a lowercase b. It's certainly not something that needs to be blared out in the first sentence of an encyclopedia article about them, right after their name and in bold typeface; It does nothing to help a reader understand who Blink-182 is. It's especially annoying because it's something seen all over musician articles: anytime an artist uses lowercase or a backwards letter or something, editors/fans seem to think this "artistic intent" needs to be loudly declared right at the very beginning of the article, as if we must be certain readers know they often use a lowercase b. It just makes lead sentences read like fansites, at least to me anyway. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- If your theory were correct, there 'would be a ridiculous amount of "(stylized as...)" side notes across thousands of articles', but there's not, so it's obviously a non-issue. People only make such annotations in response to consistent usage, like Mötley Crüe. Doing so demonstrably reduces move-warring and other "name correctness" bickering. Of all things to be alarmist about on Wikipedia, this is probably in the top 5 least important of all time. To whatever degree you believe "no one cares", you need to internalize that and feel it as well as just know it; if it's not something people care about, it's probably not worth further debate. This is yet another one of those things where editors coming to a consensus at the article in question is the best option, because there's not a compelling reason to MOS-enshrine a proscriptive rule about it. PS: I've yet to see anyone suggest extending any of this beyond performer names, to titles of works. PPS: Much of this whole debate is sorely confusing the characters (glyphs) used in a name with the typographic styles applied to them (typeface/font, bold/italic, colored, all-caps, whatever). They are two completely different if connecting concepts, like vegetables versus the seasonings we put on them.
- The "blink-182" usage doesn't seem consistent enough after all to be noteworthy. It's a lot like Siouxsie and the Banshees. They were consistently "Siouxsie & The Banshees" (note the two differences) for a quite a while but it ultimately didn't stick (it may have been a trademark issue, after changing labels; I really don't know). Contrast this with The The, which is always, always, always capitalized like that; music writers consistently spell it "The The", not "the The" or any other variant. And I don't think anyone is advocating that it be rendered, in the lead, as "The The" like it is on the album covers I've seen. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 10:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- (outdent)
- What sprang to my mind here, rather at random, was kd lang (which redirects to k.d. lang). That I think is a nonstandard title to start with, although the lead starts "Kathryn Dawn Lang (born...) known by her stage name k.d. lang. THis seems to me to contravene WP:TITLE in many ways: first the nonstandard cap, secondly shouldn't the article be at Kathryn Dawn Lang and the above be an R to it, (Kathryn Lang is a DAB page on which she is listed), third the lack of space after fullstop in the name (MOS:PUNCTSPACE), and so on. I don't particularly object to any, since I'm not a fan of her music and it's the first time I've bothered to look. What may be more relevant, though, is that I have seen her name in the press (i.e. secondary sources) and often it is printed with lower case k. d., sometimes with or without stops, so I doubt sourcing for that would be a problem. e.g. here:
- Gittins, Ian (3 June 2011). "kd lang and the Siss Boom Bang – review". The ButGuardian. Retrieved 18 March 2012.
- On the other hand the BBC has used KD in capitals (and no stops), e.g. here:
- "Singer KD Lang: "My success came late"". BBC News. 18 April 2011. Retrieved 17 March 2012.
- I just throw that up as perhaps a good/bad "canonical" example of changing the letterforms, punctuation etc. Ignore me if you think it irrelevant, and I am not grumbling about k.d. lang or those pages at all, just that it might form a kinda canonical example without worrying even about reversed characters and those from other alphabets etc.
- Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've just read the initial discussion, which I should have done before, and before I go on I should like to say that both sides have been nothing but civil and AGF in each other, and are a credit to what Wikipedia is all about.
- "Metallica to play Wembley stadium". BBC News. 19 March 2007. Retrieved 18 March 2012.
- Obviously the BBC has its own style guide, probably several for different branches to fit with context, and so I am not suggesting we slavishly follow that. But it does give an example of where a house style guide overrides how the band itself writes it (if I understand correctly that usually the band branding etc. is all-caps).
- To take the other extreme: Should we write it in a Gothic font because the band does? If the band (or any other trademark/copyright holder) insists their name is only written in blue should we then put <style color="blue"> in the title or something? Obviously things should conform to the WP style guide (which is far too complex and detailed for anyone ever to know but just have to use common sense and hope for the best), as every other big publisher has its own house style. While there are exceptions, the presumption should be to put things into house style. Si Trew (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Putting her at Kathryn Dawn Lang would violate WP:COMMONNAME in massive way. Anyway, you are raising a different though not unrelated issue. We were talking about whether it's okay to even mention artist typography at all, or (in some bits of the discussion, to mention it in the lead), but you're talking about using it as the actual article title. There are strong arguments against using characters not on the English keyboard as article titles, and these don't apply to article prose. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 10:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)