Misplaced Pages

Talk:Journey Through the Decade: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:56, 15 August 2013 editRyulong (talk | contribs)218,132 edits →Move request closed after relisting again← Previous edit Revision as of 20:05, 15 August 2013 edit undoTariqabjotu (talk | contribs)Administrators36,354 edits →Move request closed after relisting again: + replyNext edit →
Line 121: Line 121:


What the heck is going on? Did someone forget to move the posting on ] and it's still in the "needs imminent closure" section?—] (]) 16:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC) What the heck is going on? Did someone forget to move the posting on ] and it's still in the "needs imminent closure" section?—] (]) 16:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
:In order for a move request to be relisted, the {{tl|relisting}} template has to be before the move requestor's signature, as the bot-generated RM page looks at the first timestamp to determine the listing time for the request. As {{user|Born2cycle}} added the template ''after'' your signature, it was never relisted and remained in the Backlog section. I could reverse the closure, but I see {{user|EdJohnston}} also closed the request a couple days ago with the same conclusion. So, I don't see a reason to do that. We already have two people come to the same decision and the move request was never actually relisted. -- ''']''' 20:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:05, 15 August 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Journey Through the Decade article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
WikiProject iconTokusatsu Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Tokusatsu, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tokusatsu on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TokusatsuWikipedia:WikiProject TokusatsuTemplate:WikiProject TokusatsuTokusatsu
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSongs Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Title

The manual of style states that odd capitalizations are only meant for the Japanese audience. However, Gackt's official English language website lists the title of the single as "Journey through the Decade".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

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.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


Journey Through the Decade → Journey through the Decade — Per WP:MOSMUSIC#Capitalization and WP:ALBUMCAPS, there is currently no prohibition for the T in "through" to be capitalized. As mentioned in the section above, in all reliable sources in Japanese and English, this song is titled "Journey through the Decade".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose – Actually per WP:MOSMUSIC#Capitalization it does states not to capitalize short prepositions & defines short as less then five letters. "Through" is a preposition with more than five letters, therefore it should remain capitalized. 「gu1dry」⊤ • ¢  11:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per manual of style. Powers 20:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Clearly violates Misplaced Pages guideline on formatting. The artist or record company is perfectly entitled to use whatever ridiculous capitalisation they want: and we have the right to keep to our own style, which should apply across the board. Skinsmoke (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'd like to address a couple of points made in this discussion.

    Firstly, making the 'T' at the beginning of "Through" lower-case is no more "ridiculous" than a rule that treats prepositions with more than five letters differently from other prepositions. That's as arbitrary as can be. That doesn't mean I'm against it; I just disagree that what we're doing is inherently more sensible than what someone else is doing.

    Secondly: "Consistency, clarity, and ease of use by both readers and editors." Whether or not this particular 'T' is capitalized has no effect on the "clarity" of the article, nor on "ease of use by readers and editors". Redirects exist. "Consistency" alone is a very weak argument.

    Thirdly: "If you want to debate the reasons behind this well-established guideline, please do so at WT:MOSTM or Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Albums". This is absolutely the wrong approach. We do not work from the top down, but from the bottom up. Here, and in the specific context of other articles, is precisely where these decisions are made, and the guideline reflects that descriptively. It does not command decisions prescriptively. "If you want to make an exception, go change the rule first," is never a valid argument on Misplaced Pages. Each time we apply a rule, we are to consider whether the rule actually serves the encyclopedia, in that particular case.

    The more of these cases I see, the more inclined I am to the view that we should either follow reliable sources regarding capitalization, or else format everything, including k.d. lang and bell hooks, according to a house style. The latter is very unlikely to happen, so I think that leaves us with reliable sources. -GTBacchus 18:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Support unless someone's got some significant sources that capitalize it as we currently capitalize it. We can apply guidelines to help solve problems, but in this case (if the sources really are unanimous) there doesn't seem to be a problem to solve.--Kotniski (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
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.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Journey Through the Decade → Journey through the Decade – It should not be Misplaced Pages's job to change how this particular name is formatted, particularly when "Journey through the Decade" is the only way the song has ever been formatted in any sort of press (WP:MOS-TM states "editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones)"). The musician's English language website does not alter the name of the song for his English-speaking audience. The flash nature of his website prevents direct linking, but entries naming this song are featured in May 2009 ("The theme song for the movie version...") and in January 2009 ("Journey through the Decade will be released...") on his News page.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Speedy close; no new argument presented. Misplaced Pages has its own house style when it comes to capitalization. Powers 11:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
    • It doesn't matter if no new argument has been presented. The last debate closed as no consensus, not "do not move". Misplaced Pages should not enforce its own house style on matters such as this. Considering it has been nearly a year since the last debate, it should not matter if I make a new one based on the same reasoning: nowhere other than Misplaced Pages capitalizes the T in "through", and per WP:MOS-TM, the current form of the title is against general policy and wide ranging practice.—Ryulong (竜龙) 18:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Bzzt. Last discussion was "no consensus" and almost a year ago. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. It's one thing to follow a convention when no clear answer can be discerned from usage in reliable sources, but here the sources are practically unanimous. Let's just follow them, as we do for countless other titles, like k.d. lang, bell hooks, and will.i.am. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Personal names have long enjoyed an exception to our manual of style; titles of artistic works, not so much. Powers 19:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
      • It should be an aspect of the artistic work to have its name formatted in whatever way the artist intended. And it's only a change of one letter, which should not have been forcibly moved and the move made impossible to undo. If we are to follow the wider manuals of style, WP:MOS-TM says Misplaced Pages shouldn't make up stylizations unless they actually are in use. There is no publication that capitalizes the T in "through" other than Misplaced Pages, so we are actively violating one guideline while violating another. And as GTBacchus stated in the previous discussion, single article discussions of whether or not this particular page should be an exception to any of the other policies is what is done; not attempting to modify the guideline in order to get a style change accepted universally.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Any time the MOS dictates anything that is contrary to obvious predominant usage in sources, it should be ignored, and, ideally, fixed. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep as is per MOS:CT. There are professional style guides that say the same thing. The rule is basically what isn't capitalized, not what is. It's a stylization choice by the artist/label and Misplaced Pages follows its own guideline. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.


Requested move 04 August 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. -- tariqabjotu 15:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Journey Through the Decade → Journey through the Decade – This song's title is universally formatted as "Journey through the Decade" with a lower case "T" on "through": Billboard-Japan.com, artist's website, Oricon charting news, Natalie.mu, iTunes. MOS:CT currently states that "Through" should be capitalized, but because this is not an English song it should not be subject to those rules. French songs like Tu aurais dû me dire (Oser parler d'amour), Romanian songs like Dragostea din tei, Estonian songs like Et uus saaks alguse (I could continue to pick songs from Eurovision articles after this) are all formatted per the capitalization style as used within their native country. I don't see any reason why this song should be an exception, other than the fact that it is from Japan and the title is originally written in English text. —Ryulong (琉竜) 18:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC) --Relisted. B2C 23:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose The title is in English so WP:MOSCT applies. The Manual of Style does not state that the composition has to be in English, it states "In the English titles of compositions..." Aspects (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MOS:CT. It's an English title, so our English capitalization guidelines are what's relevant, as Aspects has said. Some English style guides (such as the Chicago Manual) call for prepositions of any length to be lowercase in titles, so the uses with lowercase through are following an acceptable style; it's simply not the Misplaced Pages style. Deor (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Because the MOS says to capitalize prepositions of more than four letters in titles. That's also the advice in other style manuals (Words into Type is one); and the point here, as with all such codifications of style, is to ideally achieve consistency within a work or series of publications (which Misplaced Pages notionally is). If everyone who writes for the New York Times or The New Yorker, say, is allowed to follow his or her own preferences on style matters, the reader is likely to be continually perplexed by inexplicable variations and perhaps get the impression that the publication is edited in a slipshod manner or perhaps entirely devoid of editorial control. Whether that concern is applicable to Misplaced Pages is a question that may well be pondered; but as long as there are style guidelines here, I see no particular reason not to follow them. Deor (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's a guideline, but it's not quite "arbitrary". It follows the most common guidance in English usage and grammar guides. like some of these. Overriding the standard guidance for a probably-not-notable song title that doesn't even appear in any English-language sources seems like a bad idea. Dicklyon (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The cover art shown on the article is a source. I think that following, to the letter, weird little rules, resulting in different capitalization in the title alongside an image of the product with a different capitalization looks unprofessional. It looks like the result of unthinking adherence to too-simple rules by low level production staff. It is similar to how ridiculous we looked with "Star Trek into Darkness". While the law may provide consistency, predictability and an efficient environment, sometimes the law is an ass. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
If we tried to mimic all the wild and varying styles on album covers, movie posters, and product packaging in general, we would have nothing but chaos. Instead, we have MOS:CT and MOS:TM. Not law; perhaps ass, but it's what we have. Dicklyon (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Generally agreed. But, "Chaos" for using source capitalization for prepositions is an exaggeration. "Journey through the Decade", like "Star Trek Into Darkness" is not wild. The guideline needs refinement, and so "oppose per the guideline" is a pretty poor rationale. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
"Journey through the Decade" is the stylization universally used within Japan to refer to this song, except for a recent album where the song is listed as "JOURNEY THROUGH THE DECADE" in promotional materials, but its listing on the iTunes store retains the original style. There is no ambiguity as with what happened with Star Trek as to what the meaning is. The song's alternate versions also show this intended capitalization, as they are formatted as "J.t.D" and not "J.T.D."—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral I personally think it looks fairly ridiculous to capitalise "through" but not "the". They are both incidental words (prepositions and articles) not proper parts of the title. However, given that it's in the manual of style there's not much that can be done about it here. Personally I'd like to see it changed in the manual of style, but from comments above it doesn't sound like that would gain much traction either so sounds like a case of "move along now, nothing more to be seen here".  — Amakuru (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    So you think the move is good but you're not supporting it because you feel its like pissing in the wind?—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    I do think the move is good, but I can't support it because it's counter to current policy. And I'm not making an attempt to change current policy because I think that would be pissing in the wind, as you put it. If someone else wants to make moves to change the policy then I would be happy to add my support vote to that.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    But WP:IAR exists so you can be allowed to support things that are counter to current policy.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - per CD cover and more importantly Chicago Manual Of Style, I cannot understand why anyone thinks Shouty Newswire MOS is appropriate for an encyclopedia. If this is what MOS:CT says then MOS:CT is wrong. There is no reason to capitalize a preposition in a song title, especially a Japanese song, and the fact that the song starts Miageru hoshi sorezore no rekishi ga kagayaite.. indicates that it is is not an English song. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move request closed after relisting again

What the heck is going on? Did someone forget to move the posting on WP:RM and it's still in the "needs imminent closure" section?—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

In order for a move request to be relisted, the {{relisting}} template has to be before the move requestor's signature, as the bot-generated RM page looks at the first timestamp to determine the listing time for the request. As Born2cycle (talk · contribs) added the template after your signature, it was never relisted and remained in the Backlog section. I could reverse the closure, but I see EdJohnston (talk · contribs) also closed the request a couple days ago with the same conclusion. So, I don't see a reason to do that. We already have two people come to the same decision and the move request was never actually relisted. -- tariqabjotu 20:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Categories: