This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Electronic music 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.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
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.
Oppose – vanity punctuation styling with self-published and promotional sources aren't sufficient to overcome Wikipedia guidelines supporting standard English formatting. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
17:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Some miscallenous sources I can list which shows the exact name are as follows:
[1],
[2],
[3], and together with the self published sources. I see no reason to have the sylicisation correction opposed. It can also be removed altogether instead, maybe leaving just "DOD"?
aNode(discuss)12:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia guidelines say to avoid unusual stylings of names unless all (or at least nearly all) independent reliable sources follow them consistently. It's not a question of whether we can find some sources that match the self-published styling. It's not even a matter of following the majority of sources. If the sources are mixed, we use the styling that is more like what is used in ordinary English. This proposal is not using ordinary English punctuation. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
05:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Move to
D.O.D - it's about time we just agreed to honour these stylisms where they appear as the majority usage in sources. Our MOS style should only apply to proper names if there's no clear preponderence of usage. It would be a far easier rule to follow than the current "only do it if sources do it and the person expressed a preference" custom, which requires pointless research. Additionally, the stylism D.O.D makes this unique compared to other
D.O.D. entries, satisfying
WP:SMALLDETAILS and
WP:NATURALDIS. —
Amakuru (
talk)
15:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)reply
It sounds like you want to change the Wikipedia guidelines. The guidelines do not say to just use whatever styling is most popular in sources. This is probably not the proper place to propose changing the guidelines. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
05:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Which guideline are you talking about? I know of no rule that tells us not to use the style commonly found in sources, and
WP:SMALLDETAILS (a policy page, no less) actively encourages it, with examples
Airplane! and
The Wörld Is Yours that differ from their regular versions purely in the fact that they have an unusual styling. —
Amakuru (
talk)
06:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
One is
MOS:TMRULES: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official', as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one". This does not say "unless the non-standard styling is a little bit more popular". It says "as long as this is a style already in widespread use". IIRC, the wording used to be slightly different. (Note that "The advice in this page also applies to names and phrases used to identify individuals, movements, groups, ...") —
BarrelProof (
talk)
14:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
This isn't a trademark though. That part of the MOS is there to cater for things like macy*s, odd stylisms that aren't usually reproduced in sources or similar quirky things that companies try to push on us. This is just a way to write a proper name though, and
The Wörld Is Yours is documented evidence, on a policy page, that your theory on this is incorrect. Thanks —
Amakuru (
talk)
15:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
That page applies regardless of whether it's a formal trademark or not. Please see the part that I quoted that says "The advice in this page also applies to names and phrases used to identify individuals". "D.O.D" seems just as quirky as "macy*s" to me. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
16:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Yes, but the difference is that a majority of reliable sources use D.O.D in normal text and commentary whereas they don't say macy*s. And what about
The Wörld Is Yours? Isn't that an almost identical case to this one? —
Amakuru (
talk)
18:13, 25 September 2018 (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.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Electronic music 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.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
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.
Oppose – vanity punctuation styling with self-published and promotional sources aren't sufficient to overcome Wikipedia guidelines supporting standard English formatting. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
17:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Some miscallenous sources I can list which shows the exact name are as follows:
[1],
[2],
[3], and together with the self published sources. I see no reason to have the sylicisation correction opposed. It can also be removed altogether instead, maybe leaving just "DOD"?
aNode(discuss)12:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia guidelines say to avoid unusual stylings of names unless all (or at least nearly all) independent reliable sources follow them consistently. It's not a question of whether we can find some sources that match the self-published styling. It's not even a matter of following the majority of sources. If the sources are mixed, we use the styling that is more like what is used in ordinary English. This proposal is not using ordinary English punctuation. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
05:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Move to
D.O.D - it's about time we just agreed to honour these stylisms where they appear as the majority usage in sources. Our MOS style should only apply to proper names if there's no clear preponderence of usage. It would be a far easier rule to follow than the current "only do it if sources do it and the person expressed a preference" custom, which requires pointless research. Additionally, the stylism D.O.D makes this unique compared to other
D.O.D. entries, satisfying
WP:SMALLDETAILS and
WP:NATURALDIS. —
Amakuru (
talk)
15:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)reply
It sounds like you want to change the Wikipedia guidelines. The guidelines do not say to just use whatever styling is most popular in sources. This is probably not the proper place to propose changing the guidelines. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
05:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Which guideline are you talking about? I know of no rule that tells us not to use the style commonly found in sources, and
WP:SMALLDETAILS (a policy page, no less) actively encourages it, with examples
Airplane! and
The Wörld Is Yours that differ from their regular versions purely in the fact that they have an unusual styling. —
Amakuru (
talk)
06:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
One is
MOS:TMRULES: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official', as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one". This does not say "unless the non-standard styling is a little bit more popular". It says "as long as this is a style already in widespread use". IIRC, the wording used to be slightly different. (Note that "The advice in this page also applies to names and phrases used to identify individuals, movements, groups, ...") —
BarrelProof (
talk)
14:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
This isn't a trademark though. That part of the MOS is there to cater for things like macy*s, odd stylisms that aren't usually reproduced in sources or similar quirky things that companies try to push on us. This is just a way to write a proper name though, and
The Wörld Is Yours is documented evidence, on a policy page, that your theory on this is incorrect. Thanks —
Amakuru (
talk)
15:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
That page applies regardless of whether it's a formal trademark or not. Please see the part that I quoted that says "The advice in this page also applies to names and phrases used to identify individuals". "D.O.D" seems just as quirky as "macy*s" to me. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
16:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Yes, but the difference is that a majority of reliable sources use D.O.D in normal text and commentary whereas they don't say macy*s. And what about
The Wörld Is Yours? Isn't that an almost identical case to this one? —
Amakuru (
talk)
18:13, 25 September 2018 (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.