Yes indeed. Here are my answers:
- "Starkey joined the Beatles..."
- "Starkey, the Beatles' drummer..."
- "While McCartney was away, Samuels and her friends broke into the Beatles' bassist's home..."
- "Photographs of two of the Beatles working together..."
Rothorpe (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of further instances of correct usage:
- "The "White Album" is the informal name often used to refer to the double album The Beatles."
- "For more details, see The Beatles." (Referring to the Wikipedia article.)
Rothorpe (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And here are my answers:
- "Starkey became a Beatle..."
- "Starkey, Beatles' drummer..."
- "While McCartney was away, Samuels and her friends broke into the bassist's home..."
- Photographs of the two Beatles working together..." or, depending on context "Photographs of two Beatles working together..."
- Jburlinson (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Minimising even further: As articles name the group/band very clearly, it is tiring to keep mentioning the name. Examples: "Starkey was recruited to replace Best", "Starkey" (as the reader already knows what his position was), "While McCartney was away, Samuels and her friends broke into his home", and "Photographs of Lennon and McCartney working together".--andreasegde (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Four songwriters wrote for The Beatles, but the Beatles who wrote the most songs were Lennon and McCartney". That is entirely correct.--andreasegde (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Minimising the problem: "The Beatles had four songwriters, but the members who wrote the most songs were Lennon and McCartney."--andreasegde (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Minimizing even further: "All four Beatles were songwriters, but the most prolific were Lennon & McCartney."--Jburlinson (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally agree, and I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On the context argument: 1) Our MoS (and every other MoS I have) tells us to use a lower-case definite article, and 2) if the result of this mediation is to decide the issue based on the specific context of a reference to the band, then this debate moves from an article page by article page basis to a sentence by sentence basis, even a sentence frag by sentence frag basis. This approach would not seem to remediate the issue. If anything, the "context" argument only exacerbates the issue of what wiki editors should use, and it would contribute to further contention and confusion. Are we really to have a straw poll on each sentence, or each sentence frag as future disputes arise? We need a simple solution, not a complicated one, and the context argument will only cause and indeed multiply the disagreements. Imagine editors unfamiliar with this argument that will come on to Beatles articles and see that one sentence uses Big T while the next uses small t. Do we really want editors to spend several hours daily fixing the problem and switching "t"s back to the proper case based on context? Sounds like another non-solution that will in fact make the problem even worse. Question: Can anyone name one secondary WP:RS that uses both "The" and "the" in the same work? I am not aware of a single example of this in a printed source, ever. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you are proposing "Four songwriters wrote for the Beatles, but the Beatles who wrote the most songs were Lennon and McCartney".--andreasegde (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There could be a Bateman cartoon: The Man Who Mentioned The Beatles Mid-Sentence. Rothorpe (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed Rothorpe. Also, our MoS states: "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs)." So it would seem that the context/trademark argument implies that "The Beatles" is the brand and as such would require a ™ symbol, and "the Beatles" is a generic alternative, which all my MoS guides advise using whenever possible, in lieu of a trademark. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ™ and ® are issues too small to merit anyone's attention, it's better to leave them to a passing guildsman to sort out if it needs it at all. I can't imagine most editors wouldn't simply let you do whatever it is you want to on that one as it's not worth the fuss. Put it the way you want, two or three times over the course of 6 months, and if it gets reverted, leave it that way, end of issue forever. T and t are small enough issues to go all lame over, for sure, but demanding attention for anything smaller than that is just anti-social, just do as you please, confident that everyone else has better things to do. Auntie Pesky's self-satirical advice is a lesson for everyone here Penyulap ☏ 00:16, 17 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Can someone explain why "our MoS" is being used here?--andreasegde (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop with the swipes aimed at GabeMc. It does not help you or your case. Regarding "our MOS", what do you think it means? How about "Wikipedia's MOS". Binksternet (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) Our MoS (and every other MoS I have) is the target of the legitimate question, I for two would like to know what the MOS is he talking about. Penyulap ☏ 15:41, 17 Jul 2012 (UTC)
@ Binksternet: What do you mean with, "Please stop with the swipes aimed at GabeMc"? "Our MoS" has been used here by two people, and I was merely asking why. BTW, why say "It does not help you or your case"? This is a mediation case involving a number of people, and not just myself.--andreasegde (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Our MoS" has been used twice here by GabeMc and by no other. I think you should lay off the pointless jabs at GabeMc because I think your lights are sinking lower each time you do. The mediation is very likely to limit your involvement more than anybody else's. It would be wise of you to proceed with this in mind. Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a mediation page. Please think of that.--andreasegde (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When I say "our MoS" I am referring to wikipedia's MoS. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone else mentioned 'our mos' here and while Andreasegde is right and Binksternet is wrong that it was just one editor, I side with Binksternet on the issue because, as a rule, the second individual should always be ignored.
GabeMc, (and every other MoS I have) how many others do you have ? Why would our MoS appear to be giving a ruling on this, when it is trying to leave it to the local level for editors at the local level to determine, this is a serious question, as the MoS needs a fix if it is going to cause enough confusion to merit an improvement. It's not a matter of 'just you' being confused, I'll have to look for others who are !voting with a reference to the MoS, rather than a reference to the musicians. Penyulap ☏ 23:12, 17 Jul 2012 (UTC)
- If one uses the trademark for profit, which doesn't apply here.--andreasegde (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, trademark protection (and copyright protection, but that's unrelated) protects against all unauthorized uses of the mark/property in question, not just uses that involve money. The fair use exemption for non-profit and/or critical and educational usage is where secondary sources like biographers, and by extension tertiary sources like Wikipedia, can get away with using the mark without authorization. Questions of profits derived from the mark only enter the equation when you're talking about seeking monetary damages in a court. Incidentally, this is also why you wouldn't be allowed to print up and distribute a bunch of T-shirts with "THE BEATLES" written on them in big, bold letters, even if you were giving them away for free.
- But, as far as I can tell, trademark law is entirely unrelated to the capitalisation issue. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Evan. The trademark argument is not valid for our purposes here. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I quote from above: "Wikipedia, can get away with using the (trade)mark without authorization." As the trademark is "The Beatles", there is no problem here when it is used.--andreasegde (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, if we assume for a minute that the trademark argument is indeed valid, then it is still only a factor in the article chronology after they trademarked their name. For example, at Muhammad Ali, we refer to him as Cassius Clay prior to his name change in 1964, same with Malcolm X and Kareem Abdul Jabbar. So even if the trademark argument is correct, it would only apply to the article post late 1990s when the name was TMed. So we would have "the" throughout up to the year they TMed the name and "The" thereafter. Any thoughts? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Beatles trademarked the name in 1964. It says: "Beatles trademark document signed by all four members of The Beatles, and dated November 23, 1964, in the City of London. It authorizes "The Beatles" name to be registered and used by the group in the U.S."--andreasegde (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The trademark issue is a red herring, not a determinant in this dispute. Major trademarks beginning with "The" have often been reduced to lower case in the middle of a sentence. For instance, we see articles written about the New York Times, a trademarked name beginning with a capital "T", the authors using lower case "t" in mid-sentence:
- "The trust: The private and powerful family behind the New York Times" (1999)
- "The girls in the balcony: women, men, and the New York Times" (1990)
- "Agenda Setting and the 'New' News Patterns of Issue Importance Among Readers of the Paper and Online Versions of the New York Times" (2002)
- "The story of the New York times: The first 100 years, 1851–1951" (1970)
- "The Pentagon Papers as published by the New York times" (1971)
- I see no reason why the Beatles and other bands should be exempt from our normal MOS found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Capitalization of "The", Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of "The", and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Names (definite article). Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The MoS says "Generally do not capitalize the definite article", and "should in general not be capitalized" (my emphasis on the two words). There's the quandary.--andreasegde (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The MoS needs tightening, de-waffling, to avoid another repeat of this argument. It should require "the Beatles" in mid-sentence links and lists too. Rothorpe (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Rothorpe, any ambiguity or contradiction in the MoS can and should/will be fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the MoS is a guide. It says: "The Manual of Style is a style guide for all Wikipedia articles." To keep citing it is to elevate the position of a tour guide to a judge. --andreasegde (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|