Talk:Count On Me

Move request

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: moved. Understand Bkonrad's opinion, but seeing as no one has actually disagreed that MOS:CT means that all "Count on" titles should be moved to "Count On" I'm not sure it matters that much whether the dab page moves before the articles. If the articles aren't moved in a timely fashion or they are opposed at RM, someone ping me and I'll reverse this page move. Jenks24 (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Count on Me (disambiguation) → Count On Me (disambiguation) – Per MOS:CT, the following words should be capitalized: particles of phrasal verbs. If I "count on" someone, "count on" is a phrasal verb. Of course, as I disambiguation page this can also be more simply named Count on me (disambiguation) without worry of capitalization rules. In either case, I can then move or request moves for those titles in the disambiguation page to follow the Manual of Style. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Note: In the article for phrasal verb, there is an external link [1] which identifies "count on" as a phrasal verb. The definition of "count on" would equate with how its used in these titles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Good catch, Starcheer! As used here—not only in the title to this disambiguation page, but also in the titles of every song and album listed on the page—count on is definitely a phrasal verb. Were it not, the phrase would need to be interpreted in a silly way, such as “someone keeping tally of things by writing on my chest”, or “a man who holds a mid-level title of nobility riding on my shoulders”. Another external reference for its status as a phrasal verb is here (the AHD). Be bold—make the change! — Jaydiem (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this should also cover everything at "count on" titles, such as Count on the Saint, Count on You. Although personally I find this treatment of a strictly transitive phrasal verb odd: "Count them down", "count them out", "count them off". Fine, but "count them on"? "Count on" doesn't exist either as an intransitive "he counts on." or "he counts them on". Evidently there's something different about "Count on me" - what's the difference with "rely on me" Is "rely on" a phrasal verb? "Trust in" "Count on" "Rely on" "Believe in" ... whatever I don't particularly mind mind either way. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- To trust in is to trust. To rely on is to rely. To believe in is to believe. However, to count on is not to count. That's the difference. — Jaydiem (talk) 04:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, at least until every one of the actual "Count on ..." articles is retitled. I don't think this is a simple matter to be discussed on a disambiguation page in isolation from actual usage. And, as In ictu oculi notes, since this may be comparable with other similar terms, this perhaps should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. older ≠ wiser 14:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS says to capitalize phrasal verbs and multiple sites identify "count on" as a phrasal verb. The other titles can simply follow from this discussion. "Count on" changes the meaning of "count" (unless I was trying to count the freckles on your face), "believe in" doesn't change the meaning of "believe". --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then apply the rule to all the Count on pages. The spelling of the disambiguation page typically follows the spelling of the article titles it is disambiguating. older ≠ wiser 18:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I totally agree with you. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I used the grep search tool available here to find all existing article titles, including redirects, that contain "Count on" (capitalized thus). The results are shown below. Redirects are italicized, and their targets shown. I've also re-sorted the list as {aAzZ} rather than the original {AZaz}.
- Can I Count on You
- Count on me → Count on Me
- Count on Me
- Count on Me (Bruno Mars song) → Count On Me (Bruno Mars song) [redirect left behind after page move by Starcheer on 2014-06-06]
- Count on Me (Chase & Status song)
- Count on Me (disambiguation)
- Count on Me (EP)
- Count on Me (Frank Sinatra song) → On the Town (film)
- Count on Me (Jefferson Starship song)
- Count on Me (song) ⇒ Count on Me
- Count on Me (The Statler Brothers song)
- Count on My Love
- Count on My Love (disambiguation)
- Count on the saint → Count on the Saint
- Count on the Saint
- Count on You → BTR (album)
- You Can Count on Me
- You Can Count on Me (disambiguation)
- You Can't Count on Me

All titles that could be affected by a change from "Count on" to "Count On" are listed above. (If you want to run the search yourself, you can click this link.) — Jaydiem (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2014 (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.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Count on Me which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The record of that RM discussion is now at Talk:Count On Me (Whitney Houston and CeCe Winans song)#Requested move 21 July 2015. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up on move request from June 2014

Hello world... just wanted to mention that today I made the following page moves, all of which refer back to the Count On Me page move of June 2014, an archive of which is visible above.

— Jaydiem (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 April 2022

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for a move at this time. BD2412 T 06:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Per MOS:CT and the RM discussion that was just closed at Talk:You Can Count on Me#Requested move 24 March 2022. In that discussion it was concluded that "on" is being used as a preposition rather than a particle in that title. MOS:CT says to only capitalize a word that has the form of a preposition within a phrasal verb if that word is not being used as a preposition. This would revert an RM conclusion of 2014. (I don't know whether the guidance in MOS:CT about prepositions in phrasal verbs has changed since 2014.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Colonestarrice (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 02:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding whether this aspect of MOS:CT changed since mid-2014, it appears that it has not. Here is a link to the 22 July 2014 version, and I don't see any obvious difference about this. It seems that the old discussion merely focused on whether "count on" is a phrasal verb or not, without discussing whether "on" is a preposition or not. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BarrelProof: why was the MOS changed in this regard? Was it a conscious decision with consensus, or just one of the random BOLD changes that seem to happen on guideline pages over time? It seems to me that the 2014 formulation best matches what we should be doing, as there is a big big difference between the [count on] [me] formulation versus the [count] [on] [me], which as Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars says, would suggest someone doing some 1,2,3,4 counting on the person concerned. And there isn't much of a good reason why phrasal verbs shouldn't be capitalised, whether they contain a preposition or not. — Amakuru (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: Sorry if my remark was hard to understand. This part of the MOS did not change (as far as I can tell). It appears that we were just not focusing on part of what it said. Here is a link to the 22 July 2014 version, and I don't see any obvious difference about this. I suggest to have a look at the recent discussion at Talk:You Can Count on Me#Requested move 24 March 2022. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Per our formatting rules, we don't capitalize short prepositions in titles. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support after reading the relevant section. I'm guessing the decapitalisation of "on" does not apply to any "Take On..." article titles as seen there otherwise they might be included here. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see a relevant prior RM at Talk:Take On Me#Requested move (closed 20 May 2014), which explictly considered whether "on" is a preposition or not in the phrase, so I don't plan to submit an RM for Take On Me, Take On Helicopters, Take On Mars, Take On the World, Take On the World (Judas Priest song) and Take On the World (Pseudo Echo song). Similarly, I see a comment at Talk:Cum On Feel the Noize from 1 June 2012 that insists that "on" in that title is not a preposition and should thus be uppercase. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the previous discussion (Talk:You Can Count on Me#Requested move 24 March 2022). Darkday (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Count on" is a phrasal verb and, as a preposition, it would otherwise mean someone is literally counting (1,2,3,4...) on you. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. The proposal here seems to misunderstand the syntax of this title. It is not [Count] [on] [Me], as a verb with a preposition, it is a single phrasal verb with an object - [Count On] [Me]. This matches Dancing On My Own, Taking On the World and other similar titles. It looks like all the above usages match that, and the "You Can Count on Me" example is an error which should be moved back. — Amakuru (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "count on" is a phrasal verb here. But is "on" a "particle" or a preposition? Is it "not being used specifically as [a] preposition"? Please see the prior discussion comments by Darkday, Dicklyon, mellohi! and SMcCandlish. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BarrelProof: Given that "count on" is a phrasal verb, the second word is by definition a particle. That particle may be a preposition or it may be an adverb, but that's somewhat irrelevant here. The particle just means the second (or third etc) word of the verb, does it not? The point is though, that it should not be treated as a regular preposition in this case. The 2014 MOS link you mention above, as well as all major style guides (if this and this are to be believed), mandate that the entirety of phrasal verbs should be capitalised, even in rulebooks where the short prepositions are usually lowercase. And "count on" is certainly counted as a phrasal verb. See [2]. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru:. Re "the second word is by definition a particle" – see English phrasal verb. It says "Phrasal verbs that include a preposition are known as prepositional verbs and phrasal verbs that include a particle are also known as particle verbs. So there are two flavors of phrasal verbs. This was all better expressed by others in the discussion of Talk:You Can Count on Me#Requested move 24 March 2022, so I again refer to those comments. I see what seems to be an apt example in English phrasal verb#Distinguishing phrasal verb types – "You can bank on Susan," and it says "on is a preposition" in that phrase. If it's a preposition, then MOS:CT seems to say it should use a lowercase letter. In contrast, it says that for "You can take on Susan," on is a particle rather than a preposition. Note that MOS:CT does not say to capitalize all phrasal verbs. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MOS:CT and to be WP:CONSISTENT with the previous RM at "You Can Count on Me" (and with all the other titles with "on"). It should only be "On" when the word is the particle in a phrasal verb. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: "Count On" is a verb phrase, thus "on" is not a preposition. I'm pretty sure the intent here with this title is not for one person to count something on another person, like counting someone's arms or eyes, etc. Steel1943 (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That notion of "thus" seems directly counter to the English phrasal verb article, which contains a lengthy discussion of phrasal verbs that contain prepositions, which it calls "prepositional verbs". It includes examples of "verb + preposition", including "looks after" (someone), "picks on", "ran into" and "stand by" (in the supportive sense). Another example in that article is "You can bank on Susan." The "bank on" phrase seems almost exactly the same as the "count on" in these cases. The article says that "on is a preposition" in that phrase. This is contrasted with "You can take on Susan," in which on is a particle rather than a preposition. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. They are all phrasal verbs. Counting on me is never like counting on fingers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If in doubt, follow the sources. Looking at some cases, I see there’s been a history of Wikipedian hypercorrection. Wikipedian MOS aficionados should stop trying to use Wikipedia to simply English style. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose, and the previous RM referenced at the start of this request should be reopened and reverted. "Count on" is very definitely a phrasal verb, and all major dictionaries say so quite clearly: Oxford [3], Cambridge [4], Collins [5] and Macmillan [6]. Richard3120 (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what BarrelProof says above may be correct – this is definitely a phrasal verb, but the particle could be a preposition here rather than an adverb. I'm going to look into this further. Richard3120 (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What BarrelProof said is correct, but for all listed, they are phrasal verbs. You can count on fingers. To add up? Preposition. To be able to hold the rope? Phrasal verb. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a phrasal verb, but MOS:CT only says to capitalize such words in phrasal verbs that are particle verbs, not in phrasal verbs that are prepositional verbs. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Showiecz (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2022 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.