Talk:Brian d foy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (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 the science and academia work group.
 
WikiProject Perl  
WikiProject icon

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Perl, a collaborative effort to write Perl programs for using and developing Wikipedia, share scripts, and improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Perl programming language. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate 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.

The result of the debate was not to move --Lox (t,c) 08:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Brian d foyBRIAN D FOY – {brian d foy does not work because Wikipedia won't let me lowercase the name. However, proper style according to the guide is all of the same case, so BRIAN D FOY is also correct. Therefore, I would like Brian d foy moved to BRIAN D FOY. TIA. Pudgenet 04:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)} copied from the entry on the WP:RM page

Voting[edit]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Oppose apologies, per my comment below --Lox (t,c) 16:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose without apology. Upper case is just wrong. CDThieme 01:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not sure what the issue with just using {{lowercase}} is here. – Mipadi 03:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments
  • Comment Clearly this should be "brian d foy" [1], but it is currently at "Brian d foy" due to standard WP technical restrictions. I see no reason to put the entire name in capitals (which is probably also correct according to the style guide), when Template:Lowercase should be used --Lox (t,c) 16:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
If I may ask... why is his name in lowercase letters? If it's a person, then it should be capitalized, should it not? I am simply confused... Kareeser|Talk! 03:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
For as long as I have known (of) him, brian has preferred an all-lowercase representation of his name, and has consistently used it both online and in traditional print media. His website states a clear preference for (in order of preference), "brian d foy" or "BRIAN D FOY", and I think it's probably reasonable to abide by his wishes, as we no doubt would for other people who choose to change their names or use variant forms of their names for whatever reason. (c.f. Madonna (entertainer)|Madonna]], for instance). Skud 04:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, see Talk:Perl_Mongers for discussion of this same issue. Skud 05:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Many articles should really start with a lowercase letter, but cannot, due to technical limitations. {{lowercase}} is good enough to denote those articles; why not this one? – Mipadi 19:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Should wikipedia use someones official name on their birth certificate, or a name they chose for themselves later in life? Ansell 00:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think their official name, if it's just a difference of capitalization, but either way, the name the person chose for himself as well as the normal-cased version should be discussed at the top of the article. -Barry- 04:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
One more thought on this, which I posted to another article and was reverted by user:Scarpia, who I suspect is Brian D Foy.
"I don't think his name should be in lower case. If so, there needs to be a footnote or something parenthesized to mention his preference and how his name is generally written, and that's sloppy. I'll agree not to use a period after the "D" because maybe it really doesn't stand for anything, but unless there's a consensus for lower casing it, I won't."
I think the lower case thing is to get him attention, not only by the look of the name, but also by extra explanatory text that would probably need to be written so people don't think the lower case is a typo.
I'm just as inclined to call him Brian the foy as brian d foy. -Barry- 21:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The question is: why should anyone care what you are inclined to do? Pudge 17:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Because of all my barnstars. -Barry- 21:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
So that's a "no reason." Noted. Pudge 22:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Spouse[edit]

The following sentence has been removed from the article and added back a few times: He is married to Stacey Tappan. [2]

Rather than reverting this, can we have a discussion of why it should or should not be included? Jonathunder 14:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

We had an WP:OTRS request for its removal and the reference given makes no mention of her. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand. The info should not be added back. Jonathunder 16:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The referenced article used to say "now my wife, Stacey Tappan" as recently as October 9, 2006. No-one cares whether he is or is not married to Stacey Tappan. Some of us care that a) individuals censor and revise material in their own articles in flagrant violation of Wikipedia:Autobiography b) the information was furnished not by a muck-raking journalist, but by brian d foy himself and c) Wikipedia is not censored unless someone reweaves the web to further their own understandable (but unencyclopedic) agenda.
chocolateboy 00:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization[edit]

It is worth noting that Wikipedia as a rule does not recognize third-party style guides that mandate unusual typefaces, capitalization, colors, etc. Capitialization is a matter of usage rather than spelling, as as such while Mr. Foy may spell his name however he wishes we would then capitalize it in the proper fashion as is our custom. Therefore the page should be moved to Brian D Foy, the vote above notwithstanding. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Which I am doing. The salient style guide is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(trademarks) since this is a rare enough matter in names of people that it is not addressed there, though the Chicago Manual of Style and other like references would also cover it and are incorporated by reference into our style pages. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Should be Brian D. Foy, I think: c.f. E. E. Cummings (with dots, and upper case). Jonathunder 22:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
No. You are all way off. Yes, capitalization and punctuation are a matter of usage, which is precisely why you are wrong: foy is notable with his name being rendered in all lowercase with no punctuation. Indeed, most people who know of him at all don't immediately recognize his name when it is rendered, incorrectly, with capitals and punctuation. Usage reigns supreme, and usage in this case dictates lowercase and no punctuation. You can whine about Wikipedia style all you like, but nothing changes the fact that rendering his name as you have done is verifiably incorrect, and continuing to knowingly add unverifiable, incorrect, information to this entry is vandalism. Pudge 16:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Edits making an article consistent with our MOS are hardly vandalism. Please mind the civility rules, also. Jonathunder 16:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Making such edits knowingly in direct contravention of verifiable fact is vandalism. And I am minding the civility rules; you're the one who is having trouble with them by knowingly, continually, misrepresenting the facts and pretending that it's the right thing to do. Pudge 04:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
And even if your changing of the case of his name was warranted -- and it is not -- your removal of a verifiable fact about his name's pronounciation is certainly not warranted. It is, also, vandalism. You should stop it. Pudge 04:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Pudge, do you have any evidence that "most people who know of him at all don't immediately recognize his name when it is rendered ... with capitals and punctuation"? DrHydeous 21:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure. For starters, look at all the books and magazine articles he's written, the magazine that he publishes. Google him. He is only known without capitals and punctuation. 07:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
That's not evidence that those people who know of him would not immediately recognise his name when rendered as "Brian D. Foy" - or even as bRiAn FoY. DrHydeous 00:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it is precisely such evidence. Stop vandalizing the page. Pudge 15:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
My complaint about vandalism was directed at Jonathunder. Pudge 16:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not any such evidence, but I can see that arguing with you here is senseless. You've made up your mind and I don't care enough to continue banging my head against your brick wall. DrHydeous 16:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it is. Perhaps you are complaining because you do not understand how this evidence supports my case, but it is evidence. I could explain to you how the mind works in regard to language, and how our brains take shortcuts, so to speak, by using the expectation of consistent spelling and capitalization to more quickly recognize words. That would be an analysis of the evidence at hand, to support my case, but without that analysis, the evidence is still evidence.
Now, though I do not have to respond to your ad hominem attack against me, I will: yes, I have already made up my mind, because I have examined the evidence and given significant thought to it, and found that it clearly falls on this side of the argument. You have introduced no argument I've not already considered. If you do present a new argument, and it has any merit, I will reconsider my position in light of it. I agree, it would be senseless for you to argue with me here, if you have nothing new to add to the discussion that has not already been considered. Pudge 16:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, E. E. Cummings is not a good enough reason to continue your vandalism. He never actually wrote his name that way. It is factually incorrect to write his name that way. Despite what you may have been told, his publisher did it without his approval. Which you would know if you read the page you linked to. In this case, as with Cummings, brian d foy is the canonical authority for proper rendering of his own name, and he says this is how it is properly rendered. Quit the vandalism. Pudge 20:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this the same issue as bell hooks? KCinDC 19:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If fIREHOSE can be fIREHOSE, it seems brian can be brian. petdance

I've changed the sentence beginning per MOS:CAPS#Mixed_or_non-capitalization. Alternatively we can restructure the sentence so his name isn't at the beginning. peterl 06:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Also see discussion at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Grammar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterl (talkcontribs) 06:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Punctuation[edit]

Shouldn't the dot after 'D.' go? Apparently, it's not short for anything but is his entire middle name. -- pne (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Requested move 2[edit]

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.

The result of the proposal was move -- enochlau (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Brian D. Foybrian d foy — The subject is uniquely referred to in lower case by his own choice. He is a notable published author under that name. The article was previously at brian d foy but was moved to its current, incorrect capitalization recently. The subject's own preference clearly overrides any published Wikipedia spelling guideline on the matter; are we to start dictating the spelling of names next, or mandating the expansion of shortened forms of forenames? — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to override any part of WP:MOS. This is covered in the section on "Identity". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.148.86.38 (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
I hadn't noticed that: "Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification)." Good. Thanks. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move[edit]

  1. Support As mentioned above, brian d foy is simply how he is known. Period. He is only notable for things he has done under than rendering of his name. To change the rendering of his name to one by which he is not in any way notable makes no sense; it defies the whole point of WP:Notability. Pudge 16:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support He is known only as brian d foy, period. This is not a graphic affectation, it is his name, and it is how Wikipedia should render it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.182.77.130 (talkcontribs) 19:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support He should be the arbiter of his own name: he owns it. Within reason, he should be able to express a preference on how he should be addressed. (DevonMcC 19:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC))
  4. Support His name is "brian d foy". Any other rendering and we're talking about a different person. yDNA 21:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support An encyclopedia should be descriptive. While having a Wikipedia style guide for the rendering of names is good, because consistency is good and most folks don't care, it should yield when there is a notable preference. Wikipedia should go with the most descriptive term, or should we all be linking to Ferdinand Lewis Alcindor? This isn't a case of someone just wanting to screw with Wikipedia, he's been doing this for over a decade and has a clear style guide. There doesn't appear to be a technical reason why the canonical page cannot be changed to brian d foy with a redirect from the Wikipedia-style name, that would seem to satisfy all parties. Finally, mentioning how other, similar cases were handled is not an argument but merely a description of the current policy. Schwern
  6. Support the suggestion that the main entry be brian d foy with a link entry from Brian D Foy seems to make the most sense. note that this kind of issue frequently comes up in library cataloging and the systems in place for hundreds of years have to accomodate this kind of indexing variety as publishers can change author's spelling or an anonymous or psudeonym author may become known later and this information is not in the actual book but is in the card catalog or it's electronic equivalent. the Encyclopedia here must have the technical ability to handle it and policies flexible to accomodate these types of situations in order to be maximally useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.82.19.21 (talkcontribs) 04:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support I've been doing Perl for many years and have never seen this name written any other way. If I saw it as "Brian D. Foy" it would take a while to figure out what it was talking about. Are we going to change all "MacSomething"s to "McSomething" to pursue some bogus ideal of consistency? The name's bearer should determine how it appears. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.84.1.2 (talkcontribs) 04:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Regardless of the capitalization of the URL for technical reasons, the appearance of a name within an individual's entry should reflect their name as commonly used (e.g. stage name, pen name, etc) and less common usages should redirect to the most common usage. C.f. k.d. lang and bell hooks (mentioned in discussion below), also Mark Twain. -- Dagolden 14:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support The opposition cites WP:MOS, although it appears they have not read it or understood it. I assume that they refer merely to the one sentence on capitalization of proper nouns and missed the relevant part on Identity:

    This is perhaps an area where Wikipedians’ flexibility and plurality are an asset, and where we would not want all pages to look exactly alike. Wikipedia’s neutral point of view and no original research policies always take precedence.

    And specifically, "Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.148.86.38 (talkcontribs) 07:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support as per WP:MOS (Identity). Joshua Kronengold 17:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support per WP:MOS#Identity and WP:NCON principles for resolving proper noun conflicts. --Muchness 11:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support for all the reasons above :) Davorg 11:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move[edit]

  1. Oppose per WP:MOS, E. E. Cummings and the current gross miscapitalization of the KISS article. If we are going to be consistent with capitalization, then we need to be consistent across the board. 205.157.110.11 23:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    THIS ^^ is a red herring. Cummings spelled his name "E. E. Cummings", as described at E. E. Cummings, which is why it should be written that way. It's correct in Wikipedia, and it's consistent to render names the way their bearers want them to be rendered: this is why E. E. Cummings' name should be written that way, and why brian d foy's name should be written that way. The fact that some people mistakenly think that the former should be "e e cummings" and the latter "Brian D. Foy" is irrelevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.84.1.2 (talkcontribs) 04:54, 3 March 2007 166.84.1.2 (UTC)
    THIS ^^ misses the point, completely. But I forgive my anon brother for his apparent lack of knowledge of the previous RM debates relating to the above reference articles and their title's capitalization. My laziness to link to the archives is more to blame in that regard. However the point is still missed even at face value. It is quite simple. If we are to be consistent with WP:MOS capitalization rules then we are to be consistent and apply them consistently with all articles regardless of how the "subject" uses them or what not. According to "precedent", the subject's usage and own capitalization is irrelevant. Policy trumps all. 205.157.110.11 14:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    If citing the actually correct spelling of "E. E. Cummings" "misses the point, completely," then you should not have cited it as evidence to support your case. Further, you and others who cite WP:MOS do so incorrectly. Nothing in the MOS explicitly addresses capitalizing names that are by convention lower-cased, though there is a general style point of capitalizing proper nouns. But the MOS also makes clear that in identification, "neutral point of view and no original research policies always take precedence" over WP style conventions, and that "Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself or herself." Your view that the subject's own usage of his own identification is "irrelevant" is, in fact, in violation of WP:MOS. Pudge 17:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per WP:MOS. Jonathunder 02:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    I am curious what (your misreading of) WP:MOS has to do with your repeated removal of the verifiably true pronunciation guidelines. Pudge 17:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sure that many others are also curious as to how your misreading of it gives you the right to attack other editors. Chris cheese whine 04:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - the terminology used by the author is "brian d foy", which we capitalise as "Brian D Foy". To use "Brian Foy" would be incorrect terminology, since (as has been said), he uses the "D". Chris cheese whine 00:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    Which we capitalise incorrectly, in contradiction of the "Identity" section of WP:MOS. Please read it carefully. — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    Red herring - "Brian D Foy" and "brian d foy" are semantically identical - they are just rendered differently. We defer to the subject when deciding how we describe them. For instance, we have a redirect at Reginald Dwight, because the subject of that article prefers to be referred to by his professional name. When we look at how we render a title, we look at several things. We put some names in CamelCase because it's clear the term is formed from two words run together or a blend. In the case of Mr. Foy, it appears the reasoning for the lowercase rendering is "I like it better that way" - here on Wikipedia, such a reason carries exactly zero weight. Chris cheese whine 04:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments:
  • Whatever the decision, this also affects the entry for bell hooks and k.d. lang. No one seems to be complaining about them when they discuss consistent style. Wikipedia is not a here to enforce style, but document reality. The opposition seems to be less interested in consistency then advancing a personal agenda in this single case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.148.86.38 (talkcontribs) 07:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And also jessica drake - see [3]. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:NCON ("Naming Conflicts", an official Wikipedia policy), says under proper names: "The most common use of a name takes precedence;"and "Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage". The presently incorrect article title prescribes a particular usage, is is thus a violation of Wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.86.38 (talkcontribs)
    Following the common capitalisation rules of the English language does not amount to "prescribing" a certain usage. Chris cheese whine 03:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

k.d. lang and bell hooks[edit]

Regarding the comment above, that the outcome of the "move" debate affects other pages, I don’t agree that this is the case. k.d. lang is a stage name, as is bell hooks (or maybe a pen name, I’m not sure), and they may well be registered as trademarks as well. What we have here is a person’s actual name. I’m kind of torn on this one, part of me thinks that this is this guy’s actual name so we should use it as is, and part of me thinks he’s being silly (a programmer should understand the advantages of standard notation), but I guess that’s everyone’s right. As he has, presumably, changed his name, I guess we need a “born name” in the article. Anyone got a citable source for this? — PhilHibbs | talk 10:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. So what actually is his name? peterl 10:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Surname: "foy" or "d foy"?[edit]

His category sorting is "Foy, brian d", yet if we are going to go with his style guide, shouldn't it be "d foy, brian"? — PhilHibbs | talk 11:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in his style guide implies his last name is "d foy." Yes, "d foy" is considered an atom that should be used together, but that does not imply that "d foy" is his last name. Pudge 00:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization again[edit]

This issue is addressed in many places on Wikipedia. The title of this article and all uses of the name within the article should be "Brian D. Foy", or even possible "Brian D Foy". The precedent has been set within WP:MOS-TM, and across many articles. Similar issues have been seen in the articles for The Pillows, Korn, or Firehose. When working with an English encyclopedia, you should use only English formatting for the benefit of all users. It may be useful to make a note of the stylisation of the name as seen on Korn. The article could begin something like this;

Brian D. Foy (generally typset as brian d foy) is a...

For further examples of policies and similar disputes, see this, this, or this. Note that the last link explicitly states follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, which would include capitalising proper nouns (an elementary English concept, as anyone could tell you) and punctuation for "D", as it is an abbreviation (not to be confused with an acronym, not always requiring punctution, see AIDS). If the issue is not settled soon, it could be taken to the administrators' notice board, where it would be immediately corrected. --Jacob Talk 19:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make threats. You were doing very well until that point. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC) (an administrator)
Very sorry, it was not intended as a threat. I wouldn't take it to the Admin notice board, because frankly, it's too vicious for me. People are brutal there. I'm just advising everyone that it could end up in messy conflict, as I have been pulled into it before. My apologies. --Jacob Talk 00:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Were you planning on actually joining this discussion? Because right now, you are only berating editors on their conduct, while using your sysops to undo moves that could not be undone otherwise and given that you are an admitted Perl aficionado, as well as the nominator in a previous move request from the standardized to the stylized article title, there is, in all good faith, at least a hint of a conflict of interest here.
That being said, Jacob already linked to all the relevant guidelines. The Manual of Style's approach towards stylized typography has somewhat tightened over the past months and conversely its application on various articles, including those about people who employ idiosyncratic formatting for their names (i.e. Bell Hooks, K.D. Lang). Hence limiting the form "brian d foy" to a descriptive note in the lead is well in line with our guidelines and common practice around Wikipedia. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Your reasoning is perfectly good - I have no objection to another move.
You see? All it took was a bit of courtesy towards other editors with an interest (yes, like me) in the maintenance of this article. You need to take the past activity of other people into account before doing something like a page move, which in this case entailed reading and contributing to the talk page. — Hex (❝?!❞) 05:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
If there are no further arguments in the next day or two, I will make the move. I think that considering the policies reviewed, and regardless of outside opinions, a move is now required. --Jacob Talk 16:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


Page Defacing[edit]

This issue was put to rest long ago. For anyone to come back and try to revisit it is a waste of time. Go away. We've had votes, we've had admins, we've decided it. It is "brian d foy." Period. Any assertion to the contrary is simply wrong. And quoting the manual of style WHICH IN FACT backs up the existing lowercase style is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudgenet (talkcontribs) 16:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If all you care about is the title, then there is no need to continually edit the in-article text. There is NEVER any reason to refer to him as "Brian D Foy" on Wikipedia. Fine, do with titles as you wish, but get the article right. And don't quote MOS, since it does not back you up, nor does consensus. Pudge (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides unkind accusations of "defacing" a biographical article doing little to advance your point, when your edits are reverted by two other editors in a matter of minutes, there is usually a pretty good indication that the consensus you speak of has since changed (so has our Manual of Style, see WP:MOSCL#Mixed or non-capitalization). – Cyrus XIII (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but calling me a dick is civil? Pot, kettle, yawn. And no, the consensus has NOT changed, people just assumed it had been settled -- because, in fact, it had -- and therefore stopped caring. And no, you keep asserting the MOS, but you are, in fact, incorrect. IT DOES NOT back you up. It says -- quoting here, since you either don't know what it says or you misunderstand the plain language contained in it -- "For proper names and trademarks that are given in mixed or non-capitalization by their owners (such as k.d. lang, adidas and others), follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules." Exactly. Where did you get the idea that standard English says that we should capitalize proper nouns that are not capitalized? Such an idea is nonsensical. I'd like you to show me a single place that defines "standard English text formatting and capitalization rules" that backs you up: you won't find a single source, so I won't hold my breath. And no, linking to a Wikipedia page attempting to define standard English doesn't cont. Pudge (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Pudge, I've just blocked you for 24 hours for a three-revert rule violation. Please calm down. I'm sorry that it came to this, but you have to understand that you can't go against the guidelines just because you think they're wrong. If you do, get them changed first, by applying reasonable discussion in the right areas. This is not the place or way to fight a cause. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, "American [and British/Commonwealth] English conventionally capitalizes the first letter of each word in a name other than conjunctions, prepositions, and articles" - Columbia Guide to Standard American English, 1993 (to pick a random example). The stylistic principles of Wikipedia follow convention in this regard. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization discussion at the manual of style[edit]

For all interested parties, there is a discussion going on right now at the Manual of Style about whether or not to capitalize people's names against their wishes (like brian d foy, for example). -- Irn (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization 2011[edit]

This page is now out of synch. Our articles on k.d. lang and bell hooks are at those locations, and there seems to have emerged a consensus that WP:MOSTM does not apply to personal names. Therefore, I think it's appropriate that this page move back to brian d foy. I find it kind of weird, but not as weird as styling those other two articles according to the subjects' preferences, but not doing so in this case. Mr. foy has no less right to his idiosyncrasy than Ms. lang or Ms. hooks. Regardless of anyone's "rights" (which this isn't really about anyway) we should be consistent in this matter, and sources consistently call him "brian d foy". -GTBacchus(talk) 23:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Lowercase may be his "personal style" for himself, but is this done in third-party sources not connected with him? Not that I've seen. Jonathunder (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, have you looked at any of the sources that we cite in the article? They all use the lowercase style. I have yet to see a source other than Wikipedia that capitalizes his name. Got any? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I am not familiar enough with brian d foy and how his name is capitalized in third party sources to speak with any authority on that subject, but if he is indeed consistently (or even usually) called "brian d foy" in reliable third party sources, then I strongly agree that the page should be moved back to brian d foy per WP:MOSCAPS#Mixed_or_non-capitalization and to be consistent with k.d. lang, bell hooks, will.i.am et al. Ibanez100 (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm gonna give this a few days, and if sources aren't produced which capitalize his name, and if some other convincing argument isn't offered, then I'll move the article, per our policies. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)