Jump to content

Talk:NGHTCRWLRS

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Nghtcrwlrs)

Propose Move

[edit]
Moved to #Requested move 3 April 2019

I propose moving Nghtcrwlrs to NGHTCRWLRS. This is the capitalization used by the press.Naraht (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm the writer of NGHTCRWLRS. The change to Nghtcrwlrs is probably original research. See the discussion I had with the editor. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969 Can you please chime in?Naraht (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As was stated in the move, not original research, but actual WP Policy. To move the article would be in violation of policy. As was explained to NorthPark on my talkpage, which I'll recap here: There are quite a few guidelines and policies which deal with this. The primary ones are MOS:TITLE, WP:MOSTM, WP:BANDNAME, WP:NCCAPS and MOS:TITLECAPS. You can look at all of those, but the best example is in the Trademark guideline (MOSTM). There it gives the most clear guidance on the subject, pointing to Time magazine, which is stylized TIME, and to the band Kiss, which is stylized KISS. This latter one gives the clear understanding how to treat these band and album titles. Onel5969 TT me 17:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Onel5969 I appreciate that. And I agree that Kiss is the closest comparison. I do feel that there is one significant difference. *ALL* of the references use the all capitalized version. About half of the references to Kiss do have some use of Kiss with the initial capital spelled in that manner. Using any other capitalization to me seems like original research, why should Nghtcrwlrs be used rather than NghtCrwlrs or NghtCRWlRs?Naraht (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      It has zero to do with original research. It has everything to do with WP policy and guidelines, as per the two guidelines I linked above, as well as WP:ALLCAPS, which clearly says, "Reduce text written in all capitals in trademarks". It doesn't matter what is used in the references... that actually would be considered WP:OR, since you are making an interpretation based on data, contrary to WP guidelines. It's also why we use Pink, rather than P!nk. I think that in order to make a move like this, you'd have to have a WP-wide RFC to change the actual guidelines which apply. Which is fine by me. I couldn't care less one way or another. But as long as the guidelines exist as is, they should be followed.Onel5969 TT me 22:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are stylistic guidelines, not rules. If every source (or most) report it as NGHTCRWLRS, it should be reflected here since Wikipedia does not infringe on artistic style. This is apparent at iPod, Guns N' Roses, NSYNC (supported in its state by backronym), Mötley Crüe, k.d. lang and the existence of {{lowercasetitle}}, instead of Ipod, Guns n' Roses, Nsync, Motley Crue, K.D. Lang and {{uppercasetitle}}. I also support the move. This circumstance is not short living; this specific topic is reported at major media outlets such as Paste Magazine, Billboard Magazine- NorthPark1417 (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about the Naming

[edit]
Moot
 – RfC closed as improper process.

Should the the article read NGHTCRWLRS? NorthPark1417 (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. There is no need for an RfC on this: WP:TITLETM is clear - it's Nghtcrwlrs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the policy not address the conventions at Ipod, Guns n' Roses, Nsync, Motley Crue, K.D. Lang and {{uppercasetitles}}? I read the guideline, but this RfC is for a change to the guideline. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RfCs to change a guideline do not belong on the talk page of an article. The place to do it is either the talk page for the guideline, or WP:VPP. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, obviously as the editor who moved the title to its current incarnation. I agree with Redrose64. I also agree this isn't the correct forum for the RfC, as it should be somewhere where it is discussed for all articles. Onel5969 TT me 02:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved - Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Article naming convention - NorthPark1417 (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And that discussion has been closed and moved back to here... This should be easy to resolve. MOS guidance allows for occasional exceptions, and I think this qualifies. I have searched reliable sources that are independent of the band to see how they present the name. It is overwhelmingly presented in all caps. Even sources that usually avoid silly trademark stylizations (like this) use all caps when writing about this band. For WP to not follow suit would make us the odd man out, and frankly a laughingstock. That said, there is no need to change our guidance... all we need to do is admit that occasional exceptions may apply, and that this case is one of those occasional exceptions. Blueboar (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru, Blueboar, and SMcCandlish: NorthPark1417 stated this RfC is for a change to the guideline, for which an article talk page is very much the wrong venue. A matter like that must be discussed centrally. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: But what exactly was the RfC proposing to change? It looked to me like just a specific objection to the moving of this particular article, and it seemed like the respondents to the RfC were also treating it that way, arguing the merits of this individual case. As Blueboar says, we've always made exceptions where sources are overwhelming in preferring an unusual capitalisation over the standard one. That is covered by the clause at MOS:TM which says "... as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one ...". In the case of NGHTCRWLRS it looks like rendering it as Nghtcrwlrs may be so unusual that it would not qualify for widespread use and the current title is covered by existing guidelines. But anyway, if a specific change to guidelines is wanted then by all means go and start one, but it should be clear from the wording exactly what change is being proposed and it should not just focus on one specific page, as this one did. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't start the original RfC, and will not be starting another - because I am not asking for a change to the guidelines. What I am asking for is that people who do start RfCs should read WP:RFC first, particularly WP:RFCBEFORE and WP:RFCBRIEF. When they have done that, consider if an RfC is really necessary; and if it is, to carefully consider (a) where the RfC should be held and (b) what the RfC statement should be. There is a recent tendency to start RfCs for trivial matters, or to start an RfC with only a vague statement of the issue, or to put it on an inappropriate page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 April 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain t/c 20:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


NGHTCRWLRS → Nghtcrwlrs – Per MOS:TITLE, WP:NCCAPS, MOS:TM. Wikipedia uses a sentence-case titles (and title case for titles of works), absent some very compelling reason to ignore our guidelines. The WP:COI demands of the author of the work (see previous abortive RfC, and thread at top of this page) are irrelevant (see WP:OFFICIALNAME). Wikipedia does not mimic marketing capitalization gimmicks like "SONY" and "macy's". It would have to be shown that the capitalization in the title serves some kind of semantic purpose (e.g. is an acronym) in order for Wikipedia to ever put this in SCREAMING ALL-CAPS. A very large number of modern books, films, and other works are marketed in all-capitals on the covers, in print ads, etc., and we do not imitate this over-stylization.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as per nom and WP guidelines. Clearly. If we don't want to follow guidelines, why have them? Yes, sometimes there are exceptions, but they should be rare and overwhelmingly prevalent. Which most certainly does not apply in this case. Yes, there will be other examples where the title is incorrectly in all caps, but they will be weak WP:OSE arguments. However, per Redrose64's comments above, I'm not sure if this shouldn't be moved back to the project page to gain overall consensus on all articles, so as to provide some consistency within the encyclopedia. Onel5969 TT me 01:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Hello, I am the writer of NGHTCRWLRS. If every source (or most) report it as NGHTCRWLRS, it should be reflected here since Wikipedia does not infringe on artistic style or allow for original research of an artists form of presentation. This is apparent at iPod, Guns N' Roses, NSYNC (which is supported by a backronym), Mötley Crüe, k.d. lang, and others, and the existence of {{lowercasetitle}}; instead of Ipod, Guns n' Roses (slang for and), Nsync, Motley Crue (without metal umlauts), K.D. Lang. There should be an equivalent {{uppercase}} so there is no bias for uppercase titles. The topic of uppercase and vowel-less artist names is already making press at Paste Magazine, Billboard Magazine. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed - As I noted above, our MOS guidance itself states that there will be occasional exceptions to it's rules. So the question is, should this be one of those exceptions? I think so. In this case, while the capitalization may have started as a gimmick, it has become more than just a gimmick. Unlike the Macy*s and SONY examples, (which are only stylized in marketing, and not stylized in most independent journalism sources that discuss the companies) when independent sources write about this band, they routinely do use all-caps (and do so in running text). Indeed, I am having difficulty finding a single source that doesn't. Even sources that normally avoid marketing gimmicks seem to make an exception for this band's name. That overwhelming real world consensus (outside of Wikipedia) to use all caps tells me that our internal consensus should be to do so as well. We should follow the sources and use all caps in this case. Note - I don't think we need to change the guideline... I simply think that this case is a valid exception to it (already accounted for in the guideline). Blueboar (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the arguments in the nom. Not a comfortable change. But what about referring to the group instead as "Nightcrawlers" (with some appropriate dab)? Everyone will say that orally. There are at least two other bands on WP with that name. Jmar67 (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per en.wp practice. Nightcrawlers (New Jersey band) would also do. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Of course we don't try to emulate logos or marketing, but that only applies to mimicking the actual logo. If a topic is most frequently referred to in ALLCAPS in the running text of reliable secondary sources, then that is the title we use. A company like Sony is lower-cased in most sentences, but this band's name is not, and so NGHTCRWLRS is the proper sentence-case title. -- Netoholic @ 07:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There is no sign that any reference uses a non-capped version.. And any addition of vowels to the name would be original research. N'SYNC is the appropriate similar exception. The later Backronym created out of the last letters of the member's names for N'SYNC is not relevant, IMO.Naraht (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Please offer evidence of sources using a non-capped variant; if you cannot find any, you are not applying Wikipedia style but rather suggesting an alternate made-up name. SnowFire (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SnowFire and Naraht: Be careful what you wish for:
    • The band itself isn't consistent, and sometimes uses "nghtcrwlers" on its own album covers: "Be Legentil with Me". nghtcrwlrs.bandcamp.com. 2018.. That by itself is enough to end this right now.
    • Olivier, Bobby (March 19, 2015). "Best concerts this weekend: Fifth Harmony, Taking Back Sunday and more". NJ.com. NJ Advance Media. New Jersey's two most vibrant local rock scenes converge at The Stone Pony this weekend. Four bands ... Nghtcrwlrs" (If you get ad-blocker complaints from the site, use Remove Overlay plugin, and copy-paste the content into a text editor to read it all.)
    • Inconsistent in same source: "Nghtcrwlrs". Pirate!. April 28, 2015. Already cited in article. Title of page is "Nghtcrwlrs" as is their category for the band, but at least in this case they use "NGHTCRWLRS" in the prose.
    • "Bands". Dirty Douglas Radio. 2018. The band's entry is "Nghtcrwlers" This is a popular podcast, about equivalent to a mainstream airwave-radio station.
    Found in mere seconds on Google. There's also a combination of specialized-style fallacy and common-style fallacy happening here: The very tiny amount of coverage this band has is all in entertainment press (much of it amateur), and that is a genre that bends over backwards to mimic stylization of band names, album titles, movie/TV logos, etc. They have a vested monetary interest in doing so, since almost all their money comes from advertising dollars, so doing exactly what advertisers want them to do stylistically makes them more money. They lack independence from the subject on a question like this. This stuff does not apply to Wikipedia. Otherwise every single RM that attempted to move something like "SONY TEN" (or "Sony TEN") to Sony Ten would fail.

    However, the paucity of independent, reliable, secondary, and in-depth coverage in non-local media strongly suggests this should actually be taken to WP:AFD.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @SMcCandlish: On the point about how the band sometimes uses "nghtcrwlers" on its own album covers, per your argument in the move request, shouldn't you be ignoring how the text appears on the album cover as a marketing capitalization gimmick? Likewise, why do you bring up the titles of blog posts and podcasts, when you also state that Wikipedia uses a sentence-case titles? Those sources for determining what we should title this page are inadmissible according to your own move request rationale. I am not saying your rationale is wrong, but I am saying you are contradicting yourself. -- Netoholic @ 10:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't have it both ways. Either it is, is, is "NGHTCRWLRS" no matter what, and doing it any other way is a WP:GREATWRONG, or the band's name is "Nghtcrwlrs" as rendered in normal English (or as close as one can get, with a mangled-English name) and the band stylizes it howeverTF they feel like at any given moment. Given that they have been monkeying around with the stylization over time, and that various third parties like a news site and a major podcast dispense with the SCREAMING ALL-CAPS treatment, WP has no reason to use that style. "Make the subject happier" isn't a rationale. "Do it because the sources I like do it, but oops they're all from a specific style of writing that apes trademarks to make more money" isn't a rationale. "Do it because the band says 'it's official'" (despite album covers to the contrary) isn't a rationale. And WP:COMMONNAME simply isn't a style policy. It never has been one, and it could not be one or we would have no MoS, and everything we cared about in MoS that could affect titles would get imported into WP:AT as policy. Never going to happen. Look, maybe there really is some compelling reason to all-caps this band name, but no one's presented one. It's just the usual BIG FONT STUFF TO GET ATTENTION like every other such trademark.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Netoholic: I'd say the contradiction issue is less here because I specifically asked for sources. SMcCandlish usually doesn't care about this but was humoring me here, I don't think it's the main thrust of his argument.
    SMcCandlish: I've told you this before, but take people at their word. Please stop making up stupid strawman rationales for your "enemies". None of what you think is my or others reasons for opposing is even close to the versions you seem to have in your head. SnowFire (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Sheesh. "Be careful what you wish for?" Please review WP:BATTLEGROUND, Wikipedia is not about "winning". My request was sincere, if you'd just dropped off sources using this - ideally when starting this RM - that'd be fine, but you've managed to add a bunch of trolling nonsense I will attempt to ignore except to note that per discussion, your "fallacies" are just one of many opinions, not actually Wikipedia policy. You absolutely have to know that many, many editors disagree with them and DO consider the stylization used in sources relevant; call us wrong if you will, but you can't claim some sort of universal consensus. Anyway, moving to the actual substance of what you added, the sources... User:NorthPark1417 knows considerably more about the subject than either of us, and they say it's always capped in "real" sources; I am inclined to give a lot of credence to their claim. Additionally, when I say "never used elsewhere", what I really mean is "<1% of usage, ignoring the occasional eccentric blog or local news article". The sources you found all seem quite minor to me - not enough to override NorthPark's comment, nor the existing Bibliography used which appears at least somewhat more "reliable" and also uses NGHTCRWLRS. SnowFire (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, another all-caps stylisation, not an acronym. Remove per nom rationale. Lazz_R 20:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A substantial majority of sources use all-caps, so it is sensible for us to follow suit per WP:RECOGNIZE etc.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per nom and WP guidelines. --Khajidha (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Apologies for plagiarizing myself here. But: It seems very strange to me that, when almost every single reliable source, including industry publications, uses what we know with certainty is the correct use of a name, that we would intentionally choose what we know not to be correct. The proposed title is overwhelmingly preferred by the policy of using the most common name, and the manual of style specifically encourages editor discretion. The MOS is great for our writing style and when the official or common name might be unknown, but to argue that it should be used to take an official name with a specifically chosen title that is used by the absolutely overwhelming majority of reliable sources, including books, newspapers, and websites, as well as is the generally common name is fairly absurd. Our title guidelines and policies are unfortunately somewhat murky. But, what it comes down to can be gleaned from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), which states that "an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility". If Billboard is using a style, and Rolling Stone or the books written that discuss the song, or Spin or just the bulk of reliable sourcing in general largely use the official title, is it really common sense for us to be saying we shouldn't be following the sources here in order to somehow adhere to conventions and gain credibility? Wikipedia is a unique construct in that our work is so clearly tied and based off of reliable sourcing about the subject -- making us stand out and go against the grain here just doesn't make much sense.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:32, 15 April 2019 (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.

Requested move 19 August 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move the album to NGHTCRWLRS (album). Universally, editors argued that use should be consistent. There have been multiple discussions now about the capitalization, and the consensus overall has been that the capitalized form is the dominant form in the reliable sources, which is the condition of MOS:CAPS. I find no local consensus or argument here strong enough to justify moving the band's article. As such, the album name will be moved to match the main article.Cúchullain t/c 01:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


– Revisiting these discussions from earlier this year. An RM for the band failed to find consensus on using sentence-case while a separate RM for the album failed to find consensus on using all-caps. It makes little difference to me which way we swing on this, but clearly it makes no sense for the band and their self-titled album to use different capitalisations. FWIW, a web search generally seems to favour the use of all-caps, while Amazon and iTunes both use sentence-case. PC78 (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. — Newslinger talk 03:14, 28 August 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NGHTCRWLRS&oldid=1257241510"