Talk:... Featuring Norah Jones

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ... Featuring Norah Jones article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Jazz Low‑importance

	Jazz portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Award section

I removed the award section; individual tracks have received nominations but this compilation received none and thus the section is misleading. The track that won a Grammy Award before is sufficiently mentioned in the article body. Hekerui (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per nom. "Featuring Norah Jones" created as a redirect. DrKiernan (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...Featuring → ...Featuring Norah Jones – This album is called "...Featuring Norah Jones" on both her bio on iTunes, and her own website. Currently, ...Featuring Norah Jones redirects here, however, it should be there other way around, since the proper title is "...Featuring Norah Jones" User:Dan0 00 01:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~Comment - , and counterproposeshould it be ...Featuring → Featuring (Norah Jones album), per Little Broken Hearts and talk:Little Broken Hearts. Need a hatnote on Guest appearance, which Featuring redirects to, and maybe Featuring (disambiguation) as well. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see amazon handles it the way you suggest[1]. Would like others opinions on this. Your title would avoid DAB issues. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; should be Featuring Norah Jones per MOS:TM. Powers ^T 02:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see anything on MOS:TM that would support rendering it as ...Featuring rather than ...Featuring Norah Jones. Could you explain further? Dan0 00 (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it should be rendered as "...Featuring". Though I oppose this particular move, that doesn't mean I oppose any possible move. In fact, I would support a move to Featuring Norah Jones. Powers ^T 01:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread your comment. However, I fail to see how that's better, since that's not the official name, or what that has to do with MOS:TM. Perhaps you are referring to: 'Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official"'? That's the closest thing I can see to support moving it to Featuring Norah Jones, although I don't think it exactly applies. Dan0 00 (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the ellipsis appears to be primarily decorative and we frequently omit such unnecessary punctuation. "Official" names don't hold much sway here either. Powers ^T 19:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google Play also renders it as ..Featuring Norah Jones. In fact, I have yet to see one authoritative reference that has it rendered as simply ..Featuring. Dan0 00 (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support As per Dan. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Dan and discussion. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*agree with Powers, Support Featuring Norah Jones, without the three dots, per MOS:TM:

Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words (e.g., ♥ used for "love"). In the article about a trademark, it is acceptable to use decorative characters the first time the trademark appears, but thereafter, an alternative that follows the standard rules of punctuation should be used:
avoid: Macy*s, skate., [ yellow tail ], Se7en, Alien³, Toys Я Us

instead, use: Macy's, Skate, Yellow Tail, Seven, Alien 3, Toys "R" Us

Note that the stylized three-dots that began with this album continued with the next album, Little Broken Hearts, and many that kept the dots for this album dropped them for the next one. As to whether this is a genuine use of an ellipsis, we can only speculate on what word, sentence or whole section from the original text being quoted has been intentionally omitted—or if the "original text" ever was more than this. Per ellipsis, When placed at the beginning or end of a sentence, the ellipsis can also inspire a feeling of melancholy or longing. I don't know what it means when placed at the beginning of a phrase. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per de facto precendent set by ...Baby One More Time, ...But Seriously, ...And Out Come the Wolves, ...Cooks!, ...And Then There Were Three..., and others. Seems this apparent MOS violation is generally accepted on Wikipedia. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have any of those been challenged and accepted in a requested move discussion? I admit I'm surprised to see so many. Powers ^T 15:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia does have a couple of articles that use the ellipsis to begin their titles when the first name of the subject is not known for certain: ... Legh and ... More, probably Richard More. That's hardly enough to establish that this is a convention. While over 190 use three stylized dots. Care to search through them all for any closed move discussions? I browsed through a few, but came up empty so far. More common convention that's used when the first name is unknown (very common in baseball articles) is just to parenthetically DAB the last name by the subject they are noted for, e.g., Lewis (baseball), McBride (baseball), Murphy (baseball). Ya gotta wonder when men who appeared in one single major league ball game are deemed to be notable for the purpose of having their own Wikipedia article, even one at-bat (Macey (baseball)) is sufficient. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure what that has to do with this discussion. My point was that I'm not sure those initial-ellipsis titles are actually present by consensus or simply because no one has challenged them as this one has been. Thus, I am doubtful of their value as precedents. Powers ^T 21:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Clearly most have not been challenged. I can't say all. I interpret that as a de facto consensus. As mentioned earlier, we have Talk:Little Broken Hearts that was challenged and the "..." was not supported. Also, Talk:What Is... Cliff Clavin?, where "..." in the title was accepted. With Talk:If...., four-dot stylization is accepted, and wasn't even the topic of the RM. Actually, If (disambiguation) shows support for multiple examples of trailing "..." stylization and one that looks like a trailing em dash. I don't know if there should be any distinction made between leading and trailing "..." for naming guidelines purposes. Talk:'Hours...' is another example where the "..." wasn't questioned, rather it was the lower case leading letter on a proper name. But then we have Talk:Hits (Phil Collins album), where "..." was rejected on the grounds of "stylized typography" and "decorative punctuation." Talk:Nights into Dreams... is another example of "..." not being questioned while other MOS:CAPS and MOS:TM violation wasn't supported. About Last Night (film) was moved to About Last Night...; The Academy Is moved to The Academy Is.... I was looking for the guideline on "change the guideline first", but it seems there may not be one. It would help if this was more directly addressed in MOS:TM or some similar guideline. May just default to judgement call on what's most used by sources? Wbm1058 (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Clearly we are inconsistent on this point; perhaps it's safe to say there's no strong consensus site-wide? If a rule of thumb can be generated from this mess, I think the ellipses appear to be more accepted when it's clear they're eliding something (as with ...Baby One More Time and The Academy Is...). What Is... Cliff Clavin? is tough because it's not actually eliding anything, but we need some sort of punctuation there, so the ellipsis is used because that's what was used by the show. Powers ^T 22:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.