WestwoodMatt (talk | contribs) |
→The/the ... again.: ....and again |
||
Line 134: | Line 134: | ||
=== "The" or "the" Beatles === |
=== "The" or "the" Beatles === |
||
{{rfc|bio|soc|media|rfcid=55F7FDB}} |
{{rfc|bio|soc|media|rfcid=55F7FDB}} |
||
In the middle of a sentence where it is not a quote, should a capital letter be used to say The Beatles or should we say the Beatles. <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">[[User:Penyulap|'''Penyulap''']]</span>[[User talk:Penyulap|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:green 0em 0.2em 0.02em;"> ☏</span>]] 00:59, 21 Jul 2012 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | |||
===PPP=== |
|||
{{xt|'''this section of the poll has been collapsed due to the problems described in the section [[#Is the presentation of the old poll too biased]]. Changing the goalposts by rewriting the presentation mid poll might be an admirable attempt to put the shit back in the horse, but starting over, much to my horror, is required. Please vote in the [[#Straw Poll|straw poll above]] -Pen}} |
|||
the comments do still apply and by all means include the votes any way you want when determining consensus, however, for the love of God make sure you read the '''old poll header first''' it was considered too biased. Everyone including the person who opened the poll agreed on this point. |
|||
{{Collapse top}} |
|||
* '''Statement of position''' - From [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(music)#Names_.28definite_article.29 Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g.: Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues.] |
* '''Statement of position''' - From [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(music)#Names_.28definite_article.29 Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g.: Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues.] |
||
Line 148: | Line 157: | ||
From The World Book Encyclopedia: [http://www.worldbook.com/content-spotlight/item/1171-heart-and-soul-a-celebration-of-african-american-music/1171-heart-and-soul-a-celebration-of-african-american-music?start=7 "Berry was a major influence on later rock performers, including the Beatles and the Rolling Stones."] ~ [[User:GabeMc|<font color="green">GabeMc</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:GabeMc|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/GabeMc|contribs]])</sup> 00:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
From The World Book Encyclopedia: [http://www.worldbook.com/content-spotlight/item/1171-heart-and-soul-a-celebration-of-african-american-music/1171-heart-and-soul-a-celebration-of-african-american-music?start=7 "Berry was a major influence on later rock performers, including the Beatles and the Rolling Stones."] ~ [[User:GabeMc|<font color="green">GabeMc</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:GabeMc|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/GabeMc|contribs]])</sup> 00:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
'''previous problematic poll''' |
|||
⚫ | |||
From the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(music)#Names_.28definite_article.29 Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g.: Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues.] |
From the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(music)#Names_.28definite_article.29 Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g.: Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues.] |
||
Line 389: | Line 398: | ||
* '''Question''' can anyone fathom a way in which this poll could have be presented in a more biased manner ? I think the mention of the T is a little verbose myself, and the 'do you agree with the MoS' could use a little more iteration myself. <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">[[User:Penyulap|'''Penyulap''']]</span>[[User talk:Penyulap|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:green 0em 0.2em 0.02em;"> ☏</span>]] 03:48, 20 Jul 2012 (UTC) |
* '''Question''' can anyone fathom a way in which this poll could have be presented in a more biased manner ? I think the mention of the T is a little verbose myself, and the 'do you agree with the MoS' could use a little more iteration myself. <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">[[User:Penyulap|'''Penyulap''']]</span>[[User talk:Penyulap|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:green 0em 0.2em 0.02em;"> ☏</span>]] 03:48, 20 Jul 2012 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support'''. Even the standard references such as Groves Music Online are inconsistent in their use of "the Beatles" or "The Beatles", but it seems clear that a lower case "the" is the better option in running text, and more consistent with constructions such as "... a study of how a Beatles song came together". Capitalisation has a very strong implication that the "The" is a part of the name, yet "... a study of how a The Beatles song came together" is simply absurd. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 17:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
*'''Support'''. Even the standard references such as Groves Music Online are inconsistent in their use of "the Beatles" or "The Beatles", but it seems clear that a lower case "the" is the better option in running text, and more consistent with constructions such as "... a study of how a Beatles song came together". Capitalisation has a very strong implication that the "The" is a part of the name, yet "... a study of how a The Beatles song came together" is simply absurd. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 17:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
===Usage data=== |
===Usage data=== |
||
The following is from a small corpus test using one representative corpus of written British English (the [[British National Corpus|BNC]]) and one of American English ([[Corpus of Contemporary American English|COCA]]). Do with it what you will. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 14:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC) |
The following is from a small corpus test using one representative corpus of written British English (the [[British National Corpus|BNC]]) and one of American English ([[Corpus of Contemporary American English|COCA]]). Do with it what you will. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 14:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
Line 452: | Line 461: | ||
</ul></small> |
</ul></small> |
||
|} |
|} |
||
===Is the presentation of |
===Is the presentation of the old poll too biased=== |
||
I suggest that the poll is not presented in a sufficiently neutral wording <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">[[User:Penyulap|'''Penyulap''']]</span>[[User talk:Penyulap|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:green 0em 0.2em 0.02em;"> ☏</span>]] 03:51, 20 Jul 2012 (UTC) |
I suggest that the poll is not presented in a sufficiently neutral wording <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">[[User:Penyulap|'''Penyulap''']]</span>[[User talk:Penyulap|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:green 0em 0.2em 0.02em;"> ☏</span>]] 03:51, 20 Jul 2012 (UTC) |
||
: Can you provide even one example from a high-quality style guide that suggests different? Is it biased to agree with the wikipedia MoS and at least six others? Feel free to suggest style guides that prescribe an upper-case definite article mid-prose when mentioning a band name. Is the [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/57495/the-Beatles Encyclopaedia Britannica] wrong? ~ [[User:GabeMc|<font color="green">GabeMc</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:GabeMc|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/GabeMc|contribs]])</sup> 04:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
: Can you provide even one example from a high-quality style guide that suggests different? Is it biased to agree with the wikipedia MoS and at least six others? Feel free to suggest style guides that prescribe an upper-case definite article mid-prose when mentioning a band name. Is the [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/57495/the-Beatles Encyclopaedia Britannica] wrong? ~ [[User:GabeMc|<font color="green">GabeMc</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:GabeMc|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/GabeMc|contribs]])</sup> 04:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:59, 21 July 2012
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mellotron?
So, where's the Mellotron on this album? I think Mr Thompson of the excellent Planet Mellotron page successfully busted this myth, referring to Mr Emerick himself. http://www.planetmellotron.com/revbeatles.htm --217.232.45.203 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's on the single that was sadly torn from it in advance. Huw Powell (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Comments (a)
Ladies and Gentlemen, we seem to have numerous "straw poll"s being conducted at the same time (eight at the last count). We do apologise for the interruption of the transmission of conversation, for the time being. Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.--andreasegde (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- That was our friend ip 99, a sock no doubt who will be found out soon. You're header is disprutive, please change it. How embarrasing Anddreas. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- You better be ready to remove, apologize or prove accusations. Your innuendos, insults, ad hominem comments have gone on too far, here and in other articles involving The Beatles, used as distraction to your plight and frustration. This are not appreciated and not productive. I think it is time for some admin attention to give the needed break from the intense editing and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour you have been exhibiting with ad hominem attacks. Your WP:Collaboration hes been nonexistent more and more. Your poll is BS anda complete failure for any consensus. The article will stand untouched. Perhaps a lock-down also? 99.251.125.65 (talk) 03:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- You better be ready to remove, apologize or prove accusations. Your innuendos, insults, ad hominem comments have gone on too far, here and in other articles involving The Beatles, used as distraction to your plight and frustration. This are not appreciated and not productive. I think it is time for some admin attention to give the needed break from the intense editing and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour you have been exhibiting with ad hominem attacks. Your WP:Collaboration hes been nonexistent more and more. Your poll is BS anda complete failure for any consensus. The article will stand untouched. Perhaps a lock-down also? 99.251.125.65 (talk) 03:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- @ GabeMc: He wasn't my friend at all. How dare you make such an assumption, anyway? BTW, my name is spelt "Andreas". Please try harder.--andreasegde (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hold on... "You're header is disprutive". Is this from an editor who insists on "proper grammar"?--andreasegde (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, one more personal attack and I am filing an ANI report. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please do. Your inability to spell does not constitute a personal attack; I was merely pointing out a basic mistake. If you think you can scare people away by saying "I am filing an ANI report" (actually, it should be "I will file an ANI report") then I wish you the best. Have fun. BTW, have you tried spell checker? You might like it.--andreasegde (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, one more personal attack and I am filing an ANI report. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The/the ... again.
I would like to gauge the current consensus here for The/the usage. "Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g.: Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues." ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- The word you are looking for is "gauge" (to determine the exact dimensions, capacity, quantity, or force of - measure - to appraise, estimate, or judge). It is not "gage".--andreasegde (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
You got me andraes, wow, a spelling error.~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)- You're the one that insists on "proper grammar". BTW, it's Andreas, and not "andraes". Will you ever get it right?--andreasegde (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
General discussion
Also, this raises the question, should we have a wikiproject-wide consensus established on this issue, or should consensus be established page by page, as the issue is pressed? Any thoughts, suggestions? ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- There was an agreed consensus (after many, many years of argument), which GabeMc now thinks is redundant. Very sad, indeed.--andreasegde (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you need a comma between "sad" and "indeed", that's called a comma splice I believe. Also, the sentence is incomplete, lacking both a subject and a verb, something often called a sentence fragment. Did you notice the S/V split there?~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)- You don't think? Is this from the same person that very recently asked another editor if it should be "writes" or "wrote"? I think he advised you about comma splices, didn't he? FYI, the comma is placed in the correct place. You don't know your splice from your semi-colon, I'm afraid.--andreasegde (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Why is this discussion being conducted on the talkpage of an article relating to an album by the band, rather than on the bands' article talkpage - where previous discussion can be quickly reviewed? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: The MoS states: "For bands, capitalized "The" is optional in wikilinks and may be preferred when listing: A number of groups increasingly showed blues influences, among them The Rolling Stones, The Animals and The Yardbirds."
- FTR - When andreas instituted the Triangular diplomacy solution in March 2011, the previous straw poll was 13 supporting "the" and 10 supporting "The". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Another blatant lie. On this page, which was the poll, it was 17 for Support, and 4 for Oppose. GabeMc is not being honest, and the facts on the page prove it. Look for yourself.--andreasegde (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I meant the straw poll before the triangular diplomacy non-solution. Anyone can count and see that I am correct about this. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- "Before the solution"? Absolutely ridiculous, and you know it. How can one quote something that was "Before the solution"?--andreasegde (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I think anyone who looks carefully enough at that discussion will see that the tide was turning against "The" when you hastily, and unilaterally, started the triangular diplomacy discussion which yes, was ultimately widely-supported at the time. I think you jumped the gun and you didn't let the poll runs its natural course because the tide was turning. As I said above, I think most anyone who looks at the discussion will come to a similar conclusion. You instituted your unilateral non-solution on 18 March 2012, however the last support for "the" came in on 19 March 2012. So really, that poll was not even completed properly. You should have waited for the poll to run its course. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- "the tide was turning against "The""? Have you lost your marbles? It gets worse: "you hastily, and unilaterally, started the triangular diplomacy discussion". Do you have any marbles left? If anybody reads that section of the page they will immediately see that you are talking absolute, and utter rubbish. I worry about you.--andreasegde (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- (More silliness... :)) GabeMc: "you didn't let the poll runs its natural course because the tide was turning"? (I posted it on 19 March 2011. The last comment was on 4 April 2011). Was that not long enough for you?--andreasegde (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- There was a "the" support on 19 March, the same day you started the non-solution poll. You should have let the first poll run its course, but the tally was at 13 against "The" and 10 for "The",
so I can understand why you panicked.~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)- I "panicked"? After years of that bollards? Oh, ye of scarce knowledge, and the misunderstanding of common understanding. Are you hoping that I will insult you? I'll bet you are. Not today, young man. I know thrice more than thou in this cobweb of intrigue. Try harder.--andreasegde (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
"[A]nd the misunderstanding of common understanding". Nice prose grammar expert!~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)- What do you know about grammar? I seem to remember an editor chastising you about your woeful lack of experience in the matter, and I agreed with him.--andreasegde (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I do not claim to be a grammar expert, but I am working on it. Can we please stop talking about editors and start talking about the content issue at hand? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Then why do you have the absolute nerve to talk about "proper grammar", when you admit that you "do not claim to be a grammar expert"? I don't ask a street sweeper to repair my computer.--andreasegde (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I do not claim to be a grammar expert, but I am working on it. Can we please stop talking about editors and start talking about the content issue at hand? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- What do you know about grammar? I seem to remember an editor chastising you about your woeful lack of experience in the matter, and I agreed with him.--andreasegde (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I "panicked"? After years of that bollards? Oh, ye of scarce knowledge, and the misunderstanding of common understanding. Are you hoping that I will insult you? I'll bet you are. Not today, young man. I know thrice more than thou in this cobweb of intrigue. Try harder.--andreasegde (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- There was a "the" support on 19 March, the same day you started the non-solution poll. You should have let the first poll run its course, but the tally was at 13 against "The" and 10 for "The",
- Well, I think anyone who looks carefully enough at that discussion will see that the tide was turning against "The" when you hastily, and unilaterally, started the triangular diplomacy discussion which yes, was ultimately widely-supported at the time. I think you jumped the gun and you didn't let the poll runs its natural course because the tide was turning. As I said above, I think most anyone who looks at the discussion will come to a similar conclusion. You instituted your unilateral non-solution on 18 March 2012, however the last support for "the" came in on 19 March 2012. So really, that poll was not even completed properly. You should have waited for the poll to run its course. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- "Before the solution"? Absolutely ridiculous, and you know it. How can one quote something that was "Before the solution"?--andreasegde (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I meant the straw poll before the triangular diplomacy non-solution. Anyone can count and see that I am correct about this. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Another blatant lie. On this page, which was the poll, it was 17 for Support, and 4 for Oppose. GabeMc is not being honest, and the facts on the page prove it. Look for yourself.--andreasegde (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you not know the difference between the two? Are you being serious? --andreasegde (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- For a related discussion see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Here is a letter dated 1969 and signed by Lennon, Harrison and Starr which uses "the". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Rebuttal to a blatant misdirection: The letter actually says, "This is to inform you of the fact that you are not authorized to act or to hold yourself out as the attorney or legal representative of "The Beatles" [sic] or of any companies which the Beatles [any of the individual Beatles] own or control". GabeMc has just shot himself in the foot. :)) --andreasegde (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- True, but are you suggesting that everytime we write The Beatles we put it in quotes as the letter did? This is really discussion stuff that belongs in the above section for discussion. This extended badgering of all points opposed is bogging down and disrupting the poll IMO. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Badgering? Are you serious? You seem to be the one that is blaming all this on an ISP address. :))--andreasegde (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Andreas, I'll say it again. It was ip 99.251.125.65 that started-up this debate, look at the Beatles talk page and McCartney's talk page if you do not believe me. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- And you're trying to put it out, or do you have a gallon of petrol with you? Your lame excuse for bringing this awful debate up again is very, very weak.--andreasegde (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, you're non-solution isn't working, and we need a more firm consensus to avoid wasting time everyday switching "T"s to "t"s. This is actually holding up the improvement of Beatles articles IMO, and we need to find a proper solution so editors aren't being reverted daily for applying the MoS guidelines to articles. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- It might be "holding up" your ideas of what grammar is, but you have completely ignored the consensus, which was agreed upon. One wouldn't like to stop your own personal train of change to suit yourself, but you forget that Wikipedia is not your playground.--andreasegde (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, you're non-solution isn't working, and we need a more firm consensus to avoid wasting time everyday switching "T"s to "t"s. This is actually holding up the improvement of Beatles articles IMO, and we need to find a proper solution so editors aren't being reverted daily for applying the MoS guidelines to articles. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- And you're trying to put it out, or do you have a gallon of petrol with you? Your lame excuse for bringing this awful debate up again is very, very weak.--andreasegde (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Andreas, I'll say it again. It was ip 99.251.125.65 that started-up this debate, look at the Beatles talk page and McCartney's talk page if you do not believe me. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Badgering? Are you serious? You seem to be the one that is blaming all this on an ISP address. :))--andreasegde (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- True, but are you suggesting that everytime we write The Beatles we put it in quotes as the letter did? This is really discussion stuff that belongs in the above section for discussion. This extended badgering of all points opposed is bogging down and disrupting the poll IMO. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
BTW, talking about "It was ip 99.251.125.65 that started-up this debate on McCartney's talk page" is rather strange when you read this, no? I quote: "That's exactly what the "Big T" faction wants, to wear us down to the point of quitting the argument. We can win this one, once and for all. Not with weak personal rationales but with reasoned rationales. What do your MoSs say on the subject. Don't let them run you out of Beatles articles. That is how and why they win. You are an asset to the project, hold fast!" Amazing.--andreasegde (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Editor GabeMc has contributed 371 edits (#2 in the list of contributors), to Pink Floyd, which contains "The Tea Set, The Pink Floyd Sound, The Pink Floyd". The aforementioned editor has also contributed 2,391 edits (#1 contributor) to Roger Waters (an FA article), which contains The O2 Arena (London), The Bleeding Heart Band, and The Perse School. All of them are mid-sentence. One should not throw stones when one lives in a glass house.--andreasegde (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- At the time I wrote that using lower-case was not an option in a wikilink. I'll go fix them. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 12:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I thought you would do. Ridiculous.--andreasegde (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please stop trying to make this personal. This is about the Pepper article, nothing else. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- "Please stop trying to make this personal."??? I was making an observation about the articles to which you have contributed. The more you try to make this look like an attack on you (which is absolutely unwarranted), the more you make it look as if you are defending a hopeless position. Try harder, because the old tricks are not working.--andreasegde (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please stop trying to make this personal. This is about the Pepper article, nothing else. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I thought you would do. Ridiculous.--andreasegde (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- At the time I wrote that using lower-case was not an option in a wikilink. I'll go fix them. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 12:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
After GabeMc saying "I'll go fix them", the Pink Floyd article still has "The Tea Set, The Pink Floyd Sound, The Pink Floyd" in the infobox. It also has, "They covered songs by The Searchers", as well as, " including The Meggadeaths, The (Screaming) Abdabs, Leonard's Lodgers, and The Spectrum Five before settling on The Tea Set". Any more, you ask? Yes: "the band were first referred to as "The Pink Floyd Sound"", "also called The Tea Set", "All Saints Hall and The Marquee", "coverage in The Financial Times and The Sunday Times", "Nevertheless, The Pink Floyd Sound were present", "invited to watch The Beatles record". Editor GabeMc has contributed 371 edits (#2 in the list of contributors), to Pink Floyd. One wonders where the logic is.--andreasegde (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. The MoS states this as well: "For bands, capitalized "The" is optional in wikilinks and may be preferred when listing: A number of groups increasingly showed blues influences, among them The Rolling Stones, The Animals and The Yardbirds."--andreasegde (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. As read above: the Beatles talk page is actually called Talk:The Beatles. Notice the difference? Also listing the Beatles as a link is quite plainly against Wikipedia rules.--andreasegde (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Then how about these?
- Examples of the uppercase definitive article (The): On TV and radio:
The Office, The Apprentice, The Wire, The Archers, and The Likely Lads.
- Bands: of course, if you have a foreign name like Los Lobos (The Wolves) or Los Super Seven, it's OK. The Who,The Drifters, The Band, The Libertines, The The, The Cure, The West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band, The Dandy Warhols, The Jam, The Knack, The La's, The Undertones, The Shadows, Gerry & The Pacemakers, The Dakotas (band), The Verve and The Beach Boys
- Newspapers: The Independent, The Observer, The Lancet, The Sun, The Scotsman, The Stage, The Spectator, The Sunday Times (UK) The Tablet, The Daily Telegraph, circulation equals The Sunday Telegraph, The Independent on Sunday, The Wire magazine, The Fortean Times, The Oldie, The London Evening Standard, and The Jewish News.--andreasegde (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- How do the reliable sources on those bands write their names in running prose? Ninety-percent or more of the Beatles sources use "the", and grammar itself dictates we use "the", or at least our MoS does. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 11:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- How are reliable sources like The Independent and The Observer linked in Wikipedia articles?--andreasegde (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Will 'we' get an answer, or not?--andreasegde (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- The MoS says to capitalise the names of newspapers not the names of bands. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- So newspapers have special privileges, but groups of musicians don't? How interesting, but difficult to comprehend, no?.--andreasegde (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- The MoS says to capitalise the names of newspapers not the names of bands. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- How do the reliable sources on those bands write their names in running prose? Ninety-percent or more of the Beatles sources use "the", and grammar itself dictates we use "the", or at least our MoS does. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 11:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Andreas comments
Please read: "Wikipedia works by building consensus. When conflicts arise, they are resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration. While not forbidden, polls should be used with care. When polls are used, they should ordinarily be considered a means to help in determining consensus, not an end in itself. While polling forms an integral part of several processes (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion), polls are generally not used for article development. Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes," most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis on consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. In summary, polling is not a substitute for discussion".--andreasegde (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
"The" or "the" Beatles
In the middle of a sentence where it is not a quote, should a capital letter be used to say The Beatles or should we say the Beatles. Penyulap ☏ 00:59, 21 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Straw Poll
PPP
this section of the poll has been collapsed due to the problems described in the section #Is the presentation of the old poll too biased. Changing the goalposts by rewriting the presentation mid poll might be an admirable attempt to put the shit back in the horse, but starting over, much to my horror, is required. Please vote in the straw poll above -Pen
the comments do still apply and by all means include the votes any way you want when determining consensus, however, for the love of God make sure you read the old poll header first it was considered too biased. Everyone including the person who opened the poll agreed on this point.
Extended content
|
---|
Cambridge and Oxford use lower-case. So does Epstein's book, both of George Martin's books, Geoff Emerick's book, Derek Taylor's book, Harrison's book, McCartney's book and Coleman's bios on Lennon. Sources that use lower-case: Lewisohn, Harry, Spitz, Gould, Norman, Davies, Everett and others. In fact of my 50+ books on the Beatles, with perhaps one or two exceptions, only those published by Omnibus use upper-case. The Associated Press Stylebook says to "avoid unnecessary capitals". The MLA Handbook says not to capitalise "the". The Chicago MoS states: "Chicago's preference is for sparing use of capitals—what is sometimes referred to as a "down" style." On page 416 of the sixteenth edition of the Chicago MoS, the work specifically mentions the Beatles, and the MoS states: "A the preceding a name, even when part of the official title, is lowercased in running text." The Cambridge Handbook by Butcher, page 241 says "in a sentence the definite article should be lower-cased". See Fowler's Modern English Usage page 293, they specifically use "the Beatles". The AP stylebook says to "avoid unnecessary capitals", so does Hart's Rules. Also, The Times and The Guardian both use lower-case "t". Here is a letter dated 1969 and signed by Lennon, Harrison and Starr which uses "the" and here is a hand-written letter by McCartney who uses "the Beatles" in running prose and "The Beatles" when written on its own. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 07:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Allmusic uses "the" throughout, as does Rolling Stone. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC) The Encyclopaedia Britannica online uses "the" throughout. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC) From The World Book Encyclopedia: "Berry was a major influence on later rock performers, including the Beatles and the Rolling Stones." ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC) previous problematic poll From the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music: Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g.: Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues. Please indicate below whether you support adhering to this current wikipedia MoS guideline by implementing a consensus here, that prefers "the" over "The" in running-prose. Or, please indicate that you oppose adhering to this current wikipedia MoS guideline and instead prefer to use "The" mid-sentence. A third option is to maintain consistency with the previous consensus to avoid mid-sentence usage throughout the previous consensus implemented at the Beatles article, which is to avoid mid-sentence usage of the band name throughout. Please include a detailed rationale, and/or suggestions. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Options
This, "you [sic] have my full apologies andrea" is NOT an apology, GabeMc, and you know it full well. You have personally attacked me in a way that contravenes every Wikipedia rule about decency towards other editors. I demand a FULL apology, and not something you slip in at the end of a comment.--andreasegde (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
If a reasonable discussion was proposed, I would be all for it. I'm sure you might have read that on my talk pages. To insinuate and attack, as one editor (GabeMc) recently wrote: ""Andreasegde has been harrassing me and threatening edit-wars, and making multiple personal attacks", makes things difficult, no?--andreasegde (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
General Copy-editing: The Cambridge Handbook for Editors, Authors and Publishers Judith Butcher. 3rd ed. 1992 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-521-40074-0 Fowler's Modern English Usage. Ed. R. W. Burchfield. Rev. 3rd ed. London: Clarendon Press, 2004. ISBN 0-19-861021-1 (hardcover). Based on Fowler's Modern English Usage, by Henry Watson Fowler. The King's English, by Henry Watson Fowler and Francis George Fowler. New Hart's Rules (2005 ed.). The Complete Plain Words, by Sir Ernest Gowers. Usage and Abusage, by Eric Partridge. Journalism The BBC News Style Guide: by the British Broadcasting Corporation.[3] The Economist Style Guide: by The Economist (UK).[4] The Guardian Style Guide: by The Guardian (United Kingdom)[5] The Times Style and Usage Guide, by The Times.[6] The Associated Press Stylebook, by The Associated Press.[7] Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
|
Usage data
The following is from a small corpus test using one representative corpus of written British English (the BNC) and one of American English (COCA). Do with it what you will. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- BNC goes to a disambiguation page - I presume you meant British National Corpus. Richerman (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
context | British BNC |
American COCA | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
use in nominal compounds1 | 63 | 10.3% | 171 | 17.2% |
other generic use without articles2 | 10 | 2.8% | 17 | 1.7% |
referring to individual band members3 | 3 | 0.9% | 22 | 2.2% |
orthographically neutralized4 | 32 | 9.2% | 107 | 10.8% |
other neutral contexts | 4 | 1.1% | 14 | 1.4% |
Total neutral contexts| | 112 | 32.1% | 331 | 33.4% |
Use without adjacent article5 | 8 | 2.3% | 29 | 2.9% |
Lowercase article | 126 | 36.1% | 564 | 57.0% |
Uppercase article | 103 | 29.5% | 66 | 6.7% |
Percentage uppercase vs. lowercase | 45.9% | 10.5% | ||
Total | 349 | 990 | ||
|
Is the presentation of the old poll too biased
I suggest that the poll is not presented in a sufficiently neutral wording Penyulap ☏ 03:51, 20 Jul 2012 (UTC)
- Can you provide even one example from a high-quality style guide that suggests different? Is it biased to agree with the wikipedia MoS and at least six others? Feel free to suggest style guides that prescribe an upper-case definite article mid-prose when mentioning a band name. Is the Encyclopaedia Britannica wrong? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Biased, yes, it is. A proposition should be objective, free from any argument as to its own merits. It is clearly not objective to phrase "options" so as to rhetorically invite editors to "oppose" en.WP's Manual of Style. The MOS is both intended to be authoritative and also broad enough to address any style questions that editors might encounter; it is a set of general rules to address a tremendous universe of possible cases, all subject to exceptions and subtleties that each should be considered legitimate in their own case. As the MOS is acknowledged to itself be subject to editing and refinement, the idea that one "opposes" it is inherently argumentative. Steveozone (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Right, I hear you. I'm curious, how would you phrase it? I don't mind improving the language. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps someone with more experience would like to suggest a minimalist and balanced proposition Penyulap ☏ 05:33, 20 Jul 2012 (UTC)
- I can't believe we're having this conversation. The Bigletterists are investing so much effort into getting their own selfish way in this utterly footling issue that I'm beginning to wonder whether they're Creationists in training.
- How's this then? "a bunch of tediously brainless wikilawyers , trolls, sockpuppets and childish spaggies want to use The Beatles when every fule kno that "the Beatles" is not only correct, but adheres to every sensible manual of style in the rational universe. Enter a vote of "Support" if you, like a normal rational human being, prefer to go along with the MoS "the Beatles", and a vote of "Oppose" if you're a knuckle-dragging mouth-breather who believes that Santa Claus is living in sin with the Tooth Fairy and think that The Beatles is the blasphemous Hell-bound option to select." Sorry, can't make it any more impartial than that. Anyone else care to have a go? --Matt Westwood 07:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Of course, presentation was too biased; that was the first thing I noticed about it. That's what clues others into how invested the combatants are in this epic issue, and is something the mediators will no doubt pick up on when they wade through this morass. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps someone with more experience would like to suggest a minimalist and balanced proposition Penyulap ☏ 05:33, 20 Jul 2012 (UTC)
The Bigletterists? - I like it. Was that a deliberate reference to the Big-endians and the Little-endians in Gulliver's travels? If so it's very apt. Richerman (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Why yes it was, I hoped someone would pick up on it. I'm gratified. --Matt Westwood 22:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- I personally am drawn to 'footling', it makes me want to reach for the dictionary, but then, which dictionary ? old English, Euro slang, or maybe it's commentarry on greammar, quite sophisticated wordsmithing there. Of course, after the EPIC FAIL at ANI to spot any of this, who cares ? I don't, it's their article now as far as I am concerned, they won it fair and square the wikipedia way. Penyulap ☏ 17:56, 20 Jul 2012 (UTC)
- Glad you like "footling", find it here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/footling
- While we're reaching for the dictionary, what are "spaggies"? — Mudwater (Talk) 19:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- A made-up deliberately insulting-sounding word in order to hammer home a point by means of irony. --Matt Westwood 22:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ha ha, thanks for explaining. It sounds British to me. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- It is. I am. --Matt Westwood 23:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ha ha, thanks for explaining. It sounds British to me. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- A made-up deliberately insulting-sounding word in order to hammer home a point by means of irony. --Matt Westwood 22:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
ANI discussion of some behaviour here
Discussion regarding the behaviour of an editor here 99.251.125.65 (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Of several editors, actually. Including yourself. Mythpage88 (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion is now closed.--andreasegde (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Sock puppets
Unproductive, unrelated to article improvement
|
---|
Apparently, on this page, I am now being accused of being IP 99.251.125.65, by GabeMc (who else?): "...having a fake dialogue with the ip 99 to throw us off. Compare the writing styles, and its interesting that they are preparing us for extremely close ISP addys. Gothcha!... The ip in question and Andreas logged in within 10 minutes of each other tonight, to perform the fake dialogue. Take a look admins... They began a fake dialogue on andreas' talk page 18 minutes after I implicated andreas as a possible master... How did ip 99 know what continent Radio and Andreas live on within a week of editing?" I suppose I should complain, but I'm laughing too much. :))--andreasegde (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
|
Unproductive, unrelated to article improvement
|
---|
User:GabeMc is
Canvassing? FFS! Yes, GabeMc invited me to comment here, presumably becasue he knows I have some interest in The Beatles. (There's my opinion, which I hardly think matters.) I don't see the problem. I don't think Gabe would have had any idea of my opinion on the matter, because I cannot recall ever expressing it here before. He's just a polite editor who like to encourage discussion. And that's something I can't say about many of the rabid fanatics involved in this discussion. (Oh, and sorry about the late response. I've been in a place with no Internet or mobile phone coverage for the past week. What a delight! And I won't apologise for not calling my phone a cell phone. It's not in prison.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC) |
"The/the" discussion and straw poll July 2012 @ the Beatles
FYI, there is a discussion and straw poll taking place at the Beatles talk page. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
more discussion
PLEASE IGNORE THE POLL.
There is an ongoing poll HERE, which User:GabeMc is trying to demolish by placing a new fake poll on The Beatles' page.--andreasegde (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
There is also a request on a mediation page (which User:GabeMc started), to not comment until the RfC on "Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" has finished. Check it out.--andreasegde (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the mediation page was: "Suspend. Pending completion of an RfC on this subject. This request may be evaluated at another time, after the RfC concludes. Please bring your discussions there. If the RfC does not result in consensus, the filing party should leave a note on my (or any other mediator's) talk page to reconsider opening this case. For the Mediation Committee", Lord Roem (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)]
Because User:GabeMc is not satisfied with how things are going, he is trying to create a diversion here. It really is a sorry state of affairs when an editor has to stoop to such tactics.--andreasegde (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Andreas, your recent edits here constitue an attempt to disrupt this discussion. I have filed an ANI report on this incident here. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- My name here is Andreasegde, so please use it.
- I have added my own comments to the complaint.
- My comments were along the lines of this: you are trying to subvert the the RfC on "Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" by adding a new one on The Beatles talk page, and your conduct is destructive to any kind of process.--andreasegde (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
There is an edit warring complaint by GabeMc at [2] which is not going GabeMc's way and, the way things are going, it seems the complainer may himself get punished by the admins. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- That has got nothing to do with improving this article. Please let things take their course there and stop adding fuel to the fire. Richerman (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- If you look at [3], I think GabeMc just made a fatal mistake. A Wikipedian should NEVER criticise an administrator. Steelbeard1 (talk)
- Says who? If admins are beyond reproach for dropping the f-bomb and passing the buck, then what's all this about civility and 3RR anyway? The day you cannot criticise an admin in a civil manner is the day wikipedia loses the battle against Fascism, IMO. Jimbo would not agree with you Steelbeard1. And would you please stop using this talk page as your own personal billboard to try and trash my rep? You are out-of-line here, and these personal attacks in an inappropriate venue are below you. Please stop trying to make this about me. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 11:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- If you look at [3], I think GabeMc just made a fatal mistake. A Wikipedian should NEVER criticise an administrator. Steelbeard1 (talk)
- What Richerman said. If you absolutely need to foment drama, this is not the place. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- AN/I report on this incident
- Comment: The RfC at Sgt. Pepper's has now been completed, and a mediation page has been started here. Mediation must be respected, and not confused with further polls.--andreasegde (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Beatles mediation notice 16 July 2012
There is an open mediation taking place here. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
"The/the" Mediation Actual Input Requirements
Please note that request for input by email was made on the talk page, *not* on the page mentioned above. Email must be submitted to be considered as your input to this matter. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)