This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
On 17 July 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Girls like You. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
The result of the move request was: Not moved. consensus appears to be that the title shouldn't be moved. While the MOS is indeed clear on this as Dekimasu points out it isn't clear if it has community consensus. Their point that if the issue as a whole was brought to the community that there would likely be no consensus is well taken. Perhaps this is a discussion to have at WT:MOS. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 01:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Girls Like You →
Girls like You – There are two possible meanings of the phrase "girls like you" - (1) "like" is a verb, and it is someone telling another person that girls like them; and (2) "like" is a preposition, and is the phrase is part of a larger sentence in which someone tells a girl what girls like her are prone to do. Looking at
the lyrics, it's clear that this song is using meaning (2), and as such, per
MOS:TITLECAPS, the "like" should have not be capitalised as it is a preposition with fewer than five letters. —
Amakuru (
talk) 16:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Going over this, all of the rationales are invalid. How many sources are using "Like" is irrelevant in a four-letter preposition case when 99.9% of them are news, since
news style follows the four-letter rule (i.e., virtually never news publisher will render it "Like" in every title of everything, no matter what). WP is
not written in news style as a matter of policy. Most book publishers use a five-letter rule (as does WP), and academic ones use a never-capitalize-any-prepositions rule, so by the time this gets mentioned in books and in music or popular culture journals, they render it "like" in this song's title. The appearance of source consistency is a temporary illusion. Next, no rationale for the assertion that is similar to
Star Trek Into Darkness is provided, and it clearly isn't sensible. It's well-sourced that STID's title is a play on words, forming both a sentence and a subtitle simultaneously. Nothing like that is going on here. Next, YouTube is
not a reliable source; iTunes Store
isn't an RS either. Then the final opposer says they don't actually know what the rules are. So, FAIL. The close is flat-out wrong. You cannot declare that a site-wide guideline doesn't have consensus on the basis of four people making invalid arguments that don't even address whether it has consensus. It would take a massive RfC at
WP:VPPOL to declare that the guideline isn't a guidline. If I'd noticed this close sooner I would have taken this to
WP:MR and also sought revocation of the page-mover bit, on policy-competence and
WP:SUPERVOTE grounds; but it's too stale for that now. Anyway, if anyone feels like re-RMing, feel free to crib any argument you like from this.
15:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The comment below was originally made in the closed move request discussion. I have taken the liberty of placing it in its own subsection per WP:TALKO. Life of Tau 07:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can you guys include the Austria (Ö3 Austria Top 40) in the 2018 Year-End section? It's #13 and here's the ref: https://oe3.orf.at/charts/stories/2886107/ Cardicharts ( talk) 21:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I’d rather say, that CARDI B bit ruined Maroon 5, change my mind… TrollNaPaprice ( talk) 18:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. There seems to be a consensus to follow the MOS here from both sides. Originally, the RM was made under the assumption that capital "Like" violated the MOS, but that was refuted by further examination of the MOS to discover an exception where "Like" is permitted to be capitalized if independent sources commonly do so. Since capital "Like" doesn't seem to be in violation of the MOS, no move seems to be necessary. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 05:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Girls Like You → Girls like You – Despite of the vote count that took place in 2018, MOS:TITLECAPS is very clear and unequivocal that prepositions four-letters or less should not be capitalised. Many news sources will capitalise, wikipedia is not a news source. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 19:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
likenot being capitalised. I'm not sure we need a consensus to apply the MOS. At the moment, the existing situation means a local consensus based on opinion with no procedural or factual backing overrules the MOS, meaning that the target article is the exception to the rule for no reason other than a group of editors voted it should. This is an affront to the encyclopaedic format of Wikipedia when other articles with similar prepositions have to follow this rule. It seems like an obvious case of WP:IAR, otherwise I'm effectively getting a consensus to apply the Manual of Style, which is non-sensical. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 19:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Apply our five-letter rule except when a significant majority of current, reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently capitalize, in the title of a specific work, a word that is frequently not a preposition, as in "Like" and "Past". Continue to lower-case common four-letter (or shorter) prepositions like "into" and "from".That is, if there is such a majority (an empirical matter which can be debated; so far, one participant offers evidence arguing that it is true, and none argues it is false), then "Like" should be capitalized even though it is being used as a preposition. Of course, several RM participants now were also RfC participants then (an observation which is not to suggest that those individuals' involvement in that RfC confers any ownership or authoritativeness to their interpretations of it), so I'm unsure why I'm the one to mention it while everyone else hasn't. Adumbrativus ( talk) 06:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
eNd Up wItH aRtIcLe NaMeS lIkE tHiSjust because the media/RS says so. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 07:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
eNd Up wItH aRtIcLe NaMeS lIkE tHiS, and covered by reliable sources we should abandon all sense, logic and formality and simply go with what sources say? That's not what Wikipedia is nor is it encyclopaedic, professional or formal. We have the MOS for consistency. Local consensus should not outweight MOS otherwise anyone can get together any band of mates and strong arm a project or topic into accepting a style or point of view not represented anywhere else. The MOS is also designed to prevent this daft situation we're now in where there's two works, both containing the word
like, both using the word as a preposition in the same way but both using different stylisations (one caps, one not). That's what it is at the end of the day, stylisation. Its the same reason we don't display Ty Dolla Sign as
Ty Dolla $ignor
Ty$, even though that's how his name is often listed in charts, media and on cover arts. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 19:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
aRtIcLe NaMe lIkE tHiS, and where sources have in fact used the title that way, causing it to be used as the title in Wikipedia? I think the entire point of the policy is that sources overwhelmingly tend to ignore such stying and identify such things with
Article Name Like Thisstyling, which is what we therefore end up using, as we should. BD2412 T 19:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
liketo demonstrate this is the common title. I don't believe that is how common title was intended to be portrayed or used. The decision is to capitalise L is a stylistic choice - that's the very point I am trying to make. IMO (and my experience of editing for years now), the MOS is unequivocal and presents the style of wikipedia. Pages beginning
WP:are guidance and policies. Its clear we are interpreting that differently ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 20:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.Given that their previous release doesn't capitalise
like, and the MOS specifically says "like" if as a preposition should not be capitalised, you've just broken your own argument? >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 08:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
when a significant majority of current, reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently capitalizeper the RfC at WP:VPP noted by Adumbrativus. The existing title (capitalising Like) is consistent with the guidance and the evidence. An argument might be made to WP:CONSISTENT but it is axiomatic that English is inherently inconsistent - ie there are often near as many exceptions to a rule as there is conformity. Live with it or change the rule. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
On 17 July 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Girls like You. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
The result of the move request was: Not moved. consensus appears to be that the title shouldn't be moved. While the MOS is indeed clear on this as Dekimasu points out it isn't clear if it has community consensus. Their point that if the issue as a whole was brought to the community that there would likely be no consensus is well taken. Perhaps this is a discussion to have at WT:MOS. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 01:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Girls Like You →
Girls like You – There are two possible meanings of the phrase "girls like you" - (1) "like" is a verb, and it is someone telling another person that girls like them; and (2) "like" is a preposition, and is the phrase is part of a larger sentence in which someone tells a girl what girls like her are prone to do. Looking at
the lyrics, it's clear that this song is using meaning (2), and as such, per
MOS:TITLECAPS, the "like" should have not be capitalised as it is a preposition with fewer than five letters. —
Amakuru (
talk) 16:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Going over this, all of the rationales are invalid. How many sources are using "Like" is irrelevant in a four-letter preposition case when 99.9% of them are news, since
news style follows the four-letter rule (i.e., virtually never news publisher will render it "Like" in every title of everything, no matter what). WP is
not written in news style as a matter of policy. Most book publishers use a five-letter rule (as does WP), and academic ones use a never-capitalize-any-prepositions rule, so by the time this gets mentioned in books and in music or popular culture journals, they render it "like" in this song's title. The appearance of source consistency is a temporary illusion. Next, no rationale for the assertion that is similar to
Star Trek Into Darkness is provided, and it clearly isn't sensible. It's well-sourced that STID's title is a play on words, forming both a sentence and a subtitle simultaneously. Nothing like that is going on here. Next, YouTube is
not a reliable source; iTunes Store
isn't an RS either. Then the final opposer says they don't actually know what the rules are. So, FAIL. The close is flat-out wrong. You cannot declare that a site-wide guideline doesn't have consensus on the basis of four people making invalid arguments that don't even address whether it has consensus. It would take a massive RfC at
WP:VPPOL to declare that the guideline isn't a guidline. If I'd noticed this close sooner I would have taken this to
WP:MR and also sought revocation of the page-mover bit, on policy-competence and
WP:SUPERVOTE grounds; but it's too stale for that now. Anyway, if anyone feels like re-RMing, feel free to crib any argument you like from this.
15:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The comment below was originally made in the closed move request discussion. I have taken the liberty of placing it in its own subsection per WP:TALKO. Life of Tau 07:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can you guys include the Austria (Ö3 Austria Top 40) in the 2018 Year-End section? It's #13 and here's the ref: https://oe3.orf.at/charts/stories/2886107/ Cardicharts ( talk) 21:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I’d rather say, that CARDI B bit ruined Maroon 5, change my mind… TrollNaPaprice ( talk) 18:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. There seems to be a consensus to follow the MOS here from both sides. Originally, the RM was made under the assumption that capital "Like" violated the MOS, but that was refuted by further examination of the MOS to discover an exception where "Like" is permitted to be capitalized if independent sources commonly do so. Since capital "Like" doesn't seem to be in violation of the MOS, no move seems to be necessary. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 05:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Girls Like You → Girls like You – Despite of the vote count that took place in 2018, MOS:TITLECAPS is very clear and unequivocal that prepositions four-letters or less should not be capitalised. Many news sources will capitalise, wikipedia is not a news source. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 19:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
likenot being capitalised. I'm not sure we need a consensus to apply the MOS. At the moment, the existing situation means a local consensus based on opinion with no procedural or factual backing overrules the MOS, meaning that the target article is the exception to the rule for no reason other than a group of editors voted it should. This is an affront to the encyclopaedic format of Wikipedia when other articles with similar prepositions have to follow this rule. It seems like an obvious case of WP:IAR, otherwise I'm effectively getting a consensus to apply the Manual of Style, which is non-sensical. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 19:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Apply our five-letter rule except when a significant majority of current, reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently capitalize, in the title of a specific work, a word that is frequently not a preposition, as in "Like" and "Past". Continue to lower-case common four-letter (or shorter) prepositions like "into" and "from".That is, if there is such a majority (an empirical matter which can be debated; so far, one participant offers evidence arguing that it is true, and none argues it is false), then "Like" should be capitalized even though it is being used as a preposition. Of course, several RM participants now were also RfC participants then (an observation which is not to suggest that those individuals' involvement in that RfC confers any ownership or authoritativeness to their interpretations of it), so I'm unsure why I'm the one to mention it while everyone else hasn't. Adumbrativus ( talk) 06:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
eNd Up wItH aRtIcLe NaMeS lIkE tHiSjust because the media/RS says so. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 07:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
eNd Up wItH aRtIcLe NaMeS lIkE tHiS, and covered by reliable sources we should abandon all sense, logic and formality and simply go with what sources say? That's not what Wikipedia is nor is it encyclopaedic, professional or formal. We have the MOS for consistency. Local consensus should not outweight MOS otherwise anyone can get together any band of mates and strong arm a project or topic into accepting a style or point of view not represented anywhere else. The MOS is also designed to prevent this daft situation we're now in where there's two works, both containing the word
like, both using the word as a preposition in the same way but both using different stylisations (one caps, one not). That's what it is at the end of the day, stylisation. Its the same reason we don't display Ty Dolla Sign as
Ty Dolla $ignor
Ty$, even though that's how his name is often listed in charts, media and on cover arts. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 19:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
aRtIcLe NaMe lIkE tHiS, and where sources have in fact used the title that way, causing it to be used as the title in Wikipedia? I think the entire point of the policy is that sources overwhelmingly tend to ignore such stying and identify such things with
Article Name Like Thisstyling, which is what we therefore end up using, as we should. BD2412 T 19:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
liketo demonstrate this is the common title. I don't believe that is how common title was intended to be portrayed or used. The decision is to capitalise L is a stylistic choice - that's the very point I am trying to make. IMO (and my experience of editing for years now), the MOS is unequivocal and presents the style of wikipedia. Pages beginning
WP:are guidance and policies. Its clear we are interpreting that differently ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 20:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.Given that their previous release doesn't capitalise
like, and the MOS specifically says "like" if as a preposition should not be capitalised, you've just broken your own argument? >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 08:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
when a significant majority of current, reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently capitalizeper the RfC at WP:VPP noted by Adumbrativus. The existing title (capitalising Like) is consistent with the guidance and the evidence. An argument might be made to WP:CONSISTENT but it is axiomatic that English is inherently inconsistent - ie there are often near as many exceptions to a rule as there is conformity. Live with it or change the rule. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)