Talk:Amiina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.
 
WikiProject Classical music
WikiProject icon Amiina is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
 
WikiProject Iceland (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iceland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 


Untitled[edit]

amína have changed their name to amiina. That should clear things up. -- G F Williams

Does someone know how to officially spell the quartet's name? On their website it is spelled both as amína (on a pop-up window) and AminA. On my copy of their EP it is spelled as amina on the packaging and on the inside cover. amina seems best to me, but that's just my gut-feeling. Can someone resolve this? Imaginaryoctopus(talk) 23:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, anecdotal evidence isn't worth much, but I think it was spelled lowercase with the weird I when I saw them live a couple weeks ago. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kurr.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Kurr.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

amiina vs. Amiina[edit]

discussion moved here from User talk:L!nus, see also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD under section 6. L!nus 20:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of precedent for following the guideline as well. I've argued this point at Talk:Of Montreal/Archive 1/2010/April#of Montreal or Of Montreal. --PEJL 12:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

the main concern should be providing correct information, not consistency with a guideline (which is, after all, a guideline and not a rule). if a name is intentionally written without capitalisation (or in any other way that deviates from conventional capitalisation) then that's the way it should be written. after reading through the discussion you linked i can see you adhere to a very strict reading of the guideline, but that's no reason to misspell the name amiina as Amiina, it would merely be inaccurate. L!nus 13:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
from WP:NAME

It is important to note that these are conventions, not rules carved in stone. ... and there may be cases where a particular convention is obviously inappropriate. But when in doubt, follow convention.

i think that's pretty clear: there is no doubt in this case, the band's name is amiina, convention is inappropriate. L!nus 14:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think capitalizing the first letter is obviously inappropriate. As such, that clause doesn't apply. The guideline about capitalizing band names exists precisely for cases like this. If the guideline didn't apply to cases like this, there would be no reason for the guideline. It sounds to me like you disagree with the guideline. Feel free to argue that the guideline should be changed (preferably at WT:NC). Until the guideline is changed, we should abide by it. As such, I will restore the capitalization. --PEJL 16:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
i do not disagree with the guideline, i do however disagree (and i do so with a passion) with YOUR personal, very strict reading of that guideline. the guideline exist so that an article (or a group of articles) on say The Beatles only uses one way of writing that name rather than multiple versions (like the Beatles, The beatles, the beatles), it exist in other words to provide consistency. however when a name specifically does NOT follow standard rules on capitalisation consistency should be reached by using that form of the name, in other words specific cases CAN overrule a guideline (as is clearly stated at the top of WP:NAME, see my quote above). you should also take into account WP:WIARM and the fact that before you capitalised the name the consensus was to NOT capitalise it. therefore please do not revert to capitalisation. L!nus 17:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe my interpretation of the guideline is the common interpretation of the guideline. I don't believe the wording of the guideline or its common interpretation allows for exceptions in cases like this. The guideline allows for exceptions when it is obviously inappropriate. The fact that we are having this discussion shows that it is not obviously inappropriate. Per the guideline the names of bands, albums and songs should use normalized capitalization. Almost all such names use normalized capitalization. If we were to interpret the guideline as you suggest, we'd have to change very many articles, and should rephrase the guideline. I urge you to argue for the guideline to be changed if you feel strongly about this. See also WP:MUSTARD#Capitalization. --PEJL 21:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
there is no need to rephrase the guideline, all one needs is common sense. the only reason this discussion occurs is because you see the guideline as a means to it's own end. L!nus 22:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:MUSTARD#Capitalization, which explains this guideline even clearer, specifically noting that names that are entirely lowercased should not be lowercased on Wikipedia. Please either try to accept these guidelines, or lobby to have them changed. Ignoring them just because you disagree with them is not a good option. --PEJL 05:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
look, it's quite simple: correctness of information, precedent, consensus, the opening clause in WP:NAME, WP:WIARM and common sense all speak in favour of amiina, while i can't see anything in your argument that would favour Amiina. either accept that or give some solid counter-arguments that speak against the points that i summed up, otherwise i will consider this discussion closed. (btw, i note with interest that you have had this sort of discussion before on more than one occasion, maybe you should ask yourself why that is so) L!nus 16:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
There is far more precedent for the opposite. WP:NAME doesn't actually apply (as it isn't a question of moving the article, my mistake for bringing it up), but WP:MUSTARD#Capitalization clearly applies, and explicitly mentions cases like this (using examples with adidas and craigslist). Ignoring a rule just because you disagree with it is inappropriate, per WP:WIARM. Common sense tells you that if there is a guideline specifically stating the names using all lowercase should be shown using an initial uppercase letter, and that guideline applies to cases like this, and there are no specific reasons why it shouldn't apply in this case, then the guideline should be followed. --PEJL 16:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:MUSTARD#Capitalization makes no such claim as a matter of fact. it redirects to MOS:TM where you read in the header "It is generally accepted among editors and should normally be followed, but it has exceptions; use common sense when applying it". on this page you will read "Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule". in the end it all boils down to consensus, and the consensus in this case, before your change, was amiina. i suggest you apply the guideline to this page and see what happens. L!nus 17:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting the concept of consensus. We don't treat the current version of every article as automatically representing consensus, or that fact as a reason for not making changes. As for making exceptions from the guideline, your quote includes "it should normally be followed", which means exceptions should not normally be made. Are there specific reasons why you feel an exception should be made in this case? Are you not really arguing for making exceptions in all cases (thereby circumventing the guideline completely)? --PEJL 18:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
1. consensus: inconsistent use of both amiina and Amiina was resolved in favour of amiina in an edit dating from april 1st 2007. this edit has not been challenged since until your edit, i interpret that as a consensus on using amiina rather than Amiina.
2. exceptions to the guideline: as stated above i think the guideline should not apply in cases where a band name specifically deviates from standard capitalisation (as in amiina and dEUS). as said above

the guideline exist so that an article (or a group of articles) on say The Beatles only uses one way of writing that name rather than multiple versions (like the Beatles, The beatles, the beatles), it exist in other words to provide consistency. however when a name specifically does NOT follow standard rules on capitalisation consistency should be reached by using that form of the name

such a reading and application of the guideline leads to both consistency and correct information, which after all should be our main goal.
3. reading into the matter a bit more i would also argue that bandnames should not be considered as trademarks and therefore the redirection to MOS:TM on the [WP:MUSTARD]] page should be replaced by a separate guideline in regard to bandnames. i will start a topic on the WP:MUSTARD discussion page about this.
4. i suggest we move this discussion to Talk:amiina L!nus 19:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
1. That's not what consensus means. Also, it was inconsistent when I made it consistently capitalized here.
2. To normalize non-standard capitalization is exactly what the guideline is for. If we made exceptions for all such cases, there would be no reason for the guideline. Note specifically the examples given using adidas and craigslist, which explicitly cover this scenario.
3. Whether band names are considered trademarks or not, the fact is that the guideline for how to capitalize band names is to use the same convention as for trademarks. Even if the guideline for band names were to stop referring to WP:TM, the same capitalization convention would apply, unless there was consensus to change it.
4. We could do that if you prefer. Personally I like to keep discussions in one place to make them easier to follow.
I'll repeat my claim that your complaint is with the capitalization guideline in general, not this case specifically. You have not provided any reasons why there should be an exception in this case. I urge you to argue for changing this guideline if you feel strongly about this, as you appear to do. Look, I'm just trying to enforce the guideline that is in place. If the situation were reversed, and the guideline was to not normalize capitalization, I would be arguing for following that guideline (to the many editors who would likely try to argue against it). --PEJL 20:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Just noting here that I've restored the capitalization per the current guideline. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD#capitalisation of band names. --PEJL 17:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


Let's sum up: The question is whether lowercase "amiina" (as here, March 31 - Sept 8) is a violation of the capitalization guideline. The guideline says that on WP band names, like trademarks, should be capitalized even if the "official" line is to have it all lowercase, unless there is what WP considers consensus in the editing of articles that the case in question really needs to stay uncapitalized.

There are here a policy issue and a more immediately applicable practical issue. The policy issue: Is this how band names should be treated? That discussion has been opened on this page. The issue of immediate importance, which should be discussed below: Was there consensus that "amiina" not be written "Amiina?"

WP's policy is supportive of implicit consensus (an edit being left alone by other editors signifying their agreement), according to which "amiina" was agreed on. However, "consensus can change" (WP consensus guideline), it's possible the general feeling is that "Amiina" should be used. Seems like at this stage the best way to find out is to ask. L!nus and PEJL, we've heard your positions. Anyone else? I've requested temporary protection for this page until we can resolve this. --Eitch 17:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the input Eitch. what's your stance in the matter?
as i've said here i see no reason not to revert back to amiina, i will leave the matter as it is until more voice have been heard. --L!nus 17:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually WP:TM does not include the "unless there is..." clause. Also note that the article inconsistently used both "amiina" and "Amiina" when I changed it to consistently use "Amiina". --PEJL 18:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Template:Style-guideline, as on the trademarks guideline, and MUSTARD calls itself a collection of guidelines. But this is rehashing what's already been said. Let's give others a chance to contribute. --Eitch 18:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I was just noting that the wording in the guideline was not such, as your message implied ("the guideline says..."). --PEJL 19:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The band themselves have never publicly made any demands in favour for or against capitalisation of their band name. If policy changes, then it can change then. As it is, I'm in favour of whatever policy dictates and capitalising it for now. If policy is successfully altered in the future, then the capitalisation of the band name in this article can be changed back then. G F Williams 23:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I prefer consistent capitalization conventions across Wikipedia, as per the current guidelines (which are consistent with what most newspapers do), so I would prefer to see "Amiina". I also added a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD#capitalisation of band names. --Paul Erik 00:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
as has been pointed out at the top of this page amína have changed their name to amiina. That should clear things up. even when the statement is somewhat inaccurate because their former name was Amína, it still clears things up. --L!nus 17:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to consider this issue resolved for now, in favor of capitalization. L!nus is still arguing for changing the guideline at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD#capitalisation of band names, but until that happens, we should stick to the current guideline. --PEJL 09:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

it's really not up to you (or me, or anyone else) to decide whether or not this issue is resolved. as far as i can see there is no consensus about capitalisation as yet and given that the discussion about the guideline is still ongoing the best we could do is maintain the status quo, however unsatisfactory that is. there is stuff i have been wanting to do in the amiina related articles for a while now, but i have kept them in the freezer for now because i do not want to come across as pushing my own agenda or start edit wars. if you want to resolve this issue in favour of capitalisation, you should contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD#capitalisation of band names rather than impose your opinion here. --L!nus 17:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

With "I'm going to consider this issue resolved for now" I was referring to the issue of whether this article should be capitalized, i.e. the topic of this discussion. I was basing that statement on the fact that you seemed to have finally accepted that the current guideline is to capitalize band names, the fact that no good arguments for why an exception should be made in this specific case have be made, and the other comments made in this thread which have generally been in favor of following the guideline. I agree that status quo is the way to go. (Hey, that rhymes!) Status quo is the current guideline, the one you are arguing for changing. If the guideline is ever changed, then this band name and others like it should be uncapitalized. In the meantime, the current guideline applies. --PEJL 18:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
i do not accept the current guideline, which is why i have put it into question. i see no reason why this article (or other amiina related articles) should conform to an inaccurate guideline. the current guideline is under question and therefore cannot apply. status quo would have been to let matters stand the way they did until after the bigger issue has been resolved. --L!nus 18:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not how things work. We can't stop applying guidelines just because someone disagrees with them. We apply the current guideline as long as it remains the current guideline. --PEJL 07:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

according to this reliable secondary source "For those who do have a strong preference—bell hooks is a well-known example—you will want to respect it." consistent usage of the n.s.r.o.c. name indicates the band DOES have a strong preference for it, hence the guideline DOES NOT apply. --L!nus 10:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The style guide that is relevant for Wikipedia is Wikipedia's, not CMS. There is no exception in our guideline for bands that have a strong preference. --PEJL 11:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
it appears that you are mistaken, see Talk:bell hooks#Capitalization. --L!nus 11:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
In what way am I mistaken? In that we should follow our own style guideline rather than CMS, or in that there is no exception in our guideline for bands that have a strong preference? Note firstly that bell hooks is not a band (so irrelevant to this topic), and secondly that there is nothing in that discussion that contradicts either of my claims. Also, do you really think it is useful to duplicate this discussion in three places (Talk:Amiina, Talk:Deus (band), User talk:Elice)? I suggest this discussion be moved to a central location, such as WT:MUSTARD. --PEJL 11:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

it has been pointed out in the general discussion on WP:Mustard that the same rules on capitalisation should apply to all artists names, not just band names. that makes the bell hooks case rather relevant. if you don't see a contradiction in how the issue was settled there you didn't read it carefully, after all they settled on bell hooks rather than Bell Hooks because of the CMS link!. as for having it in several places: two issues are at stake here 1. a general discussion on capitalisation and 2. should exception to the current guideline be allowed my comments on these talk pages are relevant to the second issue. --L!nus 12:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because someone mentioned CMS in an article talk page doesn't mean that CMS has precedent over Wikipedia's guidelines. I am going to leave this discussion now, because I find the duplication of this discussion inappropriate. Good luck with your efforts to change the guideline. --PEJL 12:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
perhaps you should read the argument on the bell hooks talk page better and see what the outcome of the discussion there actually was (i.e. it's bell hooks, not Bell Hooks). --L!nus 17:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
So what? CMS doesn't apply just because someone mentioned it in an article talk page. (The outcome in question is fishy, because it is based on a claim that it is in line with WP:CL, which doesn't seem to be a shortcut that would be relevant, now or then. Regardless, the outcome of the discussion at that article is entirely irrelevant to this article.) --PEJL 17:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
it's an n.s.r.o.c. artist name that is allowed to stand as such based on a good secondary source. i think that is rather relevant. --L!nus 19:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
As I've told you before, the fact that all articles on Wikipedia don't currently adhere to certain guidelines is not reason enough to stop applying the guidelines. Also, as has been noted before, the bell hooks article is irrelevant to the guideline on capitalization of bands, as bell hooks is not a band. Please try to understand that the guideline is in effect, even though you dislike it. --PEJL 20:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

1. both Cyrus XIII and Xtifr have made the point in the general discussion at WP:MUSTARD that this is not just a issue about band names but about any artist name, i agree with that (in fact i made the same point (implicit) before they did. bell hooks is an artist name, hence is relevant. 2. the point is that in the case of bell hooks people agreed after a discussion to decline the guideline in favour of the artist's intended spelling. thus the article doesn't merely not follow the guideline, it does so explicitly (and in that it differs from the state of the dEUS article when this whole thing started). what goes for bell hooks can go for any similar case. hence the guideline does not need to apply here (as it implicitly didn't before your disruptive editing). --L!nus 20:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to continue this discussion in multiple places. See Talk:Deus (band)#dEUS vs. Deus for my next post in this discussion, and hopefully all future posts not specifically relevant to this article. --PEJL 21:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

capitalisation of name[edit]

constructive dialogue is blocked due to un-constructive reverts (admittedly both parties share in the blame). moreover the apparent refusal to even accept there is a dispute by one party (see removal of {{disputeabout}} tag) makes any progress impossible. the discussion on whether or not an exception to the current WP:MUSTARD guideline on capitalisation is appropriate runs parallel with a discussion to change said guideline, therefore see also here. --L!nus 18:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's see: First you suggest to alter WP:MUSTARD (the collection of guidelines by WikProject Music) in a way that would contradict the Wikipedia Manual of Style, from which it derives its rationale. And now that the "discussion to change said guideline" appears to turn out rather bleak on your end of the dispute, you start this RfC, in an attempt to grant an article you particularly care about an exception from both WP:MUSTARD and the MoS. With all due assumption of good faith, how is this course of action in any way compatible with Wikipedia:Neutrality? - Cyrus XIII 22:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
it might be good to recount the course of these discussions. PEJL's initial edit on this article led to a discussion in which i tried to argue that the guideline needn't apply here. PEJL's insistent and non-contributal pushing of his point of view (i.e. the guideline is the guideline, no matter what) led to a broader discussion where i questioned the present guideline (at WP:MUSTARD). that doesn't mean that i can't at the same time keep on discussing an exception to the present guideline for this article, they are in effect two different discussions. i don't think the discussion at WP:MUSTARD looks bleak for me at all, it's just that you fail (or are unwilling) to actually discuss anything.
as i have pointed out, it is clear the present guideline is not as broadly accepted as you pretend it to be (see all the different discussions on the examples raised at the WP:MUSTARD talkpage, that's a valid point which you have till now failed to address, just like the other points (it's incorrect, inconsistent, not neutral...). that and your aggressive and completely unconstructive deletion of the {{disputeabout}} tag mean that at present this whole thing is completely blocked. hence outside opinions are more than welcome, hence the RfC.
and now i am going to step back for a while see what others have to say on the matter and not react on anything either you are PEJL have to say. --L!nus 22:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


I've made the capitalization uniform, Amiina/amiina was used both ways throughout the article. Also Morr Music was lowercase, which has never been the case on their website or releases. If you want to change Amiina to lower case, please do so throughout the article, I think uppercase makes it easier to read, but I won't change it back if you do Dktrfz (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)