Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks

"Widespread"

I think that it's reasonable to say that our practice as it exists in the field has NEVER been to standardize all the time if even just one source standardizes. I don't even support that sort of standard. So it may make sense to modify the guideline. But the problem with using a word like "widespread" is that it misses the actual reason that we use some of these styles. The reason we have results that may seem contradictory is that all articles are different, language/style is fluid, and basically all of these are decided on a case-by-case basis by editors at the specific articles. It may be that I and a few other people who are fond of this guideline could've tried to set up the "MOSTM Police" and go around as a band of warriors to try to standardize stuff, and it's actually quite likely that we'd have succeeded in a lot of cases, and especially in a discussion like "Big.Little" that only had about ten people participate. There are certainly more "MOSTMers" than there are the six editors who opposed that move request. But I don't want to be an MOSTM warrior, no matter how much I think the guideline helps, and I suspect that people who agree with me about MOSTM also agree that being warriors for anything doesn't usually help Wikipedia very much.

Generally, when the guideline is put to the test, editors tend to support it. As the temporary move to "Deadmaus" showed, people were very willing to cite this guideline in what I think was a too-literal way. So I think it would be a mistake to weaken the recommendation we make to standardize. If we do want to change that part of the guideline so that it doesn't invite too-literal interpretations (like Deadmaus over Deadmau5), then we should make it clear that we think standard English is the way to go, we don't care very much about "official" styles, and we care about what high-level sources do.

For what it's worth, I think that if we were to go full-on descriptivist with this guideline, we'd get pretty close by saying, "Do what the AP and NYT do, if they do the same thing." There would still be exceptions. That would not mean that it's a good idea to throw in something about "so long as what AP/NYT does is in widespread on Twitter as well." Croctotheface (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I do believe once put to the test, it does usually pass, but not for the reasons of standard english but common name and disruption of the flow of the article. So its not like this MOS is the reason why we solve it. Its because sources (both low and high) manage to solve it for us. It would be great to put this MOS to he test of more contraversial titles but the only ones we have are the ones that aren't covered so much from any source such as Sunn O))).

And I personally believe we should make a romanization manual of style for titles that are foreign. If we stick with the original spelling or we use the english phonetic way.Lucia Black (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with everything you say here. I'd probably just add that standard English tends to both be the common style and the least disruptive/distracting. And the guideline does get referenced and cited a lot. Sometimes editors think that other issues trump the recommendations here, and that's OK, too. It doesn't mean we need to throw out the guideline. Croctotheface (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

i don't think we need to throw it away...but obviously, the purpose of standard english seems to be null and void in my opinion. but to me, i still think this MOS has room to recognize exceptions, so that this MOS isn't just "a recommednation" but "a guideline we should follow 99% of the time".Lucia Black (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

By definition, guidelines recognize exceptions. I think that the idea that standard English is "null and void" is kind of preposterous. You're pointing to a few cases where it's not wholly clear what style best fits standard English, or where it's not clear whether some weird "Ojjj" type characters are part of the name (in which case this guideline, which concerns only style, would not apply) or just part of how we should write the name. It's not clear for topics that don't receive a ton of coverage whether, say, "big.LITTLE" or "Big.Little" is standard. It's EXTREMELY uncommon for us to use a nonstandard-looking style when major publications standardize. It's much more common for us to use a nonstandard-looking style when the subject doesn't receive coverage in major publications. If you want to amend the guideline to say something along those lines, then I might be able to get on board. The problem with replacing the recommendation to standardize with something that directly invites editors to make exceptions is that it would basically make the guideline say, "Meh, just go and do what you were going to do anyway." In reality, by far the most common practice is to standardize weird trademarks. If we want to describe the practice as it exists in the field, the current guideline does a pretty good job. Croctotheface (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

i'm simply saying that there is a "known" exception. and if it's known, we should "recognize" it. if it's "unknown" then, the exception can be anything and we have no business looking for one. But since it is, I think we have the option to "recommend the exception". There's a bigger more valid reason why we seek standardization and because this MOS simply states "standardization for the sake of it" it doesn't leave room for us to have a valid exception even its the most reasonable one out there.Lucia Black (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

There are exceptions made to guidelines all the time. It says right at the top of the page, "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." My point is that the animating principle behind the guideline is still a powerful force. Editors cite this guideline, and the vast, vast majority of articles are in compliance with it. Croctotheface (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the current text is that too many Editors cite it to argue against making any exceptions... especially in cases where an exception probably should be made. I think this is because the current MOS:TM text does not remind editors that there are exceptions, or explain when an exception should be made... I think it needs to. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

There are definitely wording changes that I could see helping make things clearer. That said, can you point to an example, aside from the temporary use of "Deadmaus," where there was a bad result or an unnecessary edit war because of the current wording? That some editors believe there should be fewer exceptions than you believe there should be does not really merit a change.  ;) Croctotheface (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I still believe we have to recognize what's accepted exception. though I don't think their exceptions, just additional rules that provide more coverage.Lucia Black (talk) 04:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't just ignore these things. we have to address them. its part of wikipedia. and ignoring every subject, is only going to cause it to return and return and return.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucia Black (talk • contribs) 05:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Can I add something here? We are having an edit war at the Numb3rs page and a debate over at the Talk:Numbers (TV show) page. Citing MOS:TM, one editor on 10 June 2013 had renamed the article Numbers instead of using Numb3rs as it has been titled since the article's creation on 30 April 2005. Several others and I have mentioned that most reliable resources and the Library of Congress use Numb3rs as the name of the show, and we also mentioned that the change could violate several Wikipedia policies, namely WP:COMMONNAME,WP:PRECISION, and WP:CONCISE. (Looking at it now, I realize that one can also argue that the change could also violate WP:NATURALDIS and WP:DIFFCAPS and could eventually violate WP:POVNAME in the future.) In addition, an earlier post about the show did mention that the Numb3rs spelling was used in many reliable publications.

As the show does use nonstandard English in its title, we may need an exception to MOS:TM to prevent future edit wars. If there is no exception to the rule, we may need to prove that the show's creators deliberately spelled the show with a three to end the edit war. SciGal (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This has been a point argued before (see archives for Deadmau5 vs Deadmaus), and there's no clear consensus. I personally believe that we use the form that a person , completely unfamiliar with the work, will have the least confusion over while reading the article and that is the form that ignores the silly number use (to make the title look cool) over the clearly under "Numbers", though certainly mention that it is named "Numb3rs" and redirect from "Numb3rs" would be completely appropriate. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

To me, that defeats the purpose of a disambiguation page. IF someone typed in "Numbers" and went to the literal "Numbers" page and then asked to go to a disambiguation page, then they could find it there. Also, since there's apparently no other article about a TV series resembling the name "Numbers". Those at least familiar with Wikipedia's naming system wil try to type in Numbers (TV series).

So with all of that said, i dont see why not "Numbers (TV series)" be the actual redirect, and keeping Numb3rs as the main title. its more informative to the reader to keep it that way.Lucia Black (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

MASEM, suppose I was unfamiliar with Wikipedia's naming policy, and I wanted to look up the show on Wikipedia after reading an article that mentioned the show in Entertainment Weekly or even Popular Science. I would not use Numbers (TV series) in the search engine; I would use Numb3rs, Numbers, or "Numbers TV show". If I were redirected to Numbers (TV series) from Numb3rs or even to a search results page from "Numbers TV show", I would be totally confused as to why Wikipedia would get the name of the show wrong. (In the case of "Numbers TV show", I would even begin to think that Wikipedia did not have anything on Numb3rs and may attempt to write a duplicate article about the show.) Besides, as pointed out before, many reliable sources use Numb3rs as the spelling of the show, and that should fall under Wikipedia's article naming policy. (Also, may I point out that typing in Deadmaus still directs you to a page entitled deadmau5?)

Besides, there is only one editor who vigorously disagreed with the title being Numb3rs and who changed the title of the article. That editor did so without even proposing to move the article and all related episodic articles from Numb3rs to Numbers (TV series). That's why there is evidence for an edit war.SciGal (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. If Numb3rs were at "Numbers (TV show)" and you got there searching on "Numb3rs" , there are two clear signs why you are there: under the title will say "Redirected from Numb3rs", and the first sentence of the lead should say "Numbers, stylized as Numb3rs, is a TV show...". There's no confusion there, no more than the other facets that our disamg system works for other pages. --MASEM (t) 00:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

there's no pointy in doing that for this particular series. similar to Deadmau5.Lucia Black (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The show is pronounced "Numbers" not "Numbthreers". We need to minimize confusion for people who are unaware of "fancy" spellings. --MASEM (t) 01:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, people aren't as stupid as you make them out to be. Even if the 3 replaces the E, its not as if it brings complete panic over it, and makes it incomprehensible. And you know that, but you're so dead-set into making readers dumber than the average reader.Lucia Black (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

We cannot assume everyone is a native English speaker that has experienced "l33t speak" that would otherwise immediately recognize the 3 as an e and blink past it. Also, these versions featuring unpronounable character break screen readers. We write our prose with the aim for the lowest common denominator for readership - we do assume English familiarity, but this is a non-standard English form that will trouble people inexperienced to it. --MASEM (t) 03:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Even if there are people who aren't "native english speakers" it doesn't mean that this makes it even more at a disadvantage for them. again, you have to have a pretty low opinion to these readers. English isn't the only language that does this type of naming. you continue to use the prose to clarify, so why can't the prose clarify in this instance? "pronounced as Numbers" isn't the most confusing thing in the world. you would have to assume mentally handicap, because they would have to constantly remind themselves that its pronounced the other way. i'm sorry, but you have a pretty low opinon on even non-native english readers to consider it such a fault. Lucia Black (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

So what about people who are blind or visually impared? They won't be able to understand the article, and we seek to serve them. You're making too many assumptions about the "commonality" of "l33t" spellings in the English across the globe. In the Western countries, sure, but there's plenty more English speakers than just that. --MASEM (t) 04:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Now you're just making up excuses. IF they're visually impaired then they will have difficulty reading in genereal, not understanding what the naming convention is. I dont need to know whats common, because its not like english is the only one that does that form of writing. and those unfamiliar with it in general can pick it up quite easily.Lucia Black (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you even understand what screen readers are? They are programs for blind and visually impared that read the text on a webpage off to them so they can understand it. They are people we want to serve as well, but by using non-phoentically correct spellings that are only for "coolness" factors will cause their readers to go crazy with the improper text. The larger portion of the readership is met by using standard spelling (and briefly addressing the way the show goes by with the "3" in place of the "e" in the lead.) --MASEM (t) 06:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There are broader issues with Screen Reader that wikipedia simply can't handle.Lucia Black (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope, we aim to support blind/visually impared readers via screen readers all the time, as part of WP:ACCESS. Ignoring issues with screen readers is not something you can leave off the table. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget that the show is called "Numbers", it just happens to be given a fancy styling on the screen for promotional purposes. It is not called "Numb-three-rs". --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

NO, you mean its read as "numbers" but when referring to the series, its written as "Numb3rs". Keep in mind the deadmau5 situation aswell. we have to be consistent with how exceptions work.Lucia Black (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There's no justification for an exception here (and of course we shouldn't be consistent with exceptions - they are outside the rules). We use standard English, and the show is called "Numbers". We shouldn't be indulging pretty promotional styling. See "Se7en" for a more accurate comparison. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• It does not matter how an oddly spelled/stylized name is pronounced (pronunciation can be explained in a parenthetical)... what matters is how the name appears in reliable sources. Furthermore, it does not matter how the name appears in any one single source (such as on screen in the title sequence of the show itself), what matters is how it appears in the typical reliable English language source that discusses it. The key to these oddly spelled/stylized is the principle of Recognizability. If a significant majority of reliable sources use the variant: "Numb3rs" when discussing the show, then "Numb3rs" will be the most recognizable variant, and that is what Wikipedia should use. On the other hand, following the same principle of recognizability, if a significant majority of sources that discuss the show do so using the non-stylized variant: "Numbers"... then Wikipedia should do so as well. It is what the reader will expect, and is sometimes referred to as "the principle of least surprise". So... what does an analysis of the sources tell us? Is "Numb3rs" more commonly used, or is "Numbers" more commonly used? Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • If this was the logic that we used all the time, MOS:TM would be non-existent. Instead we have it and readily deviate from the most common printed form for sake of readability of English prose. This is even a case spelled out in MOS:TM (the use of unpronounced characters). Also consider the principle of least surprise, one must keep in mind that only a minority of our readership would be familiar with the show and thus expect "Numb3rs". To anyone who has no idea what that it is, it's a surprise. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • If it's recognisability you're after, "Numb3rs" is not necessarily recognisable to a reader of standard English. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not a bad thing. Masem, you're entire basis on your reasoning is getting something you don't expect, but that can easily be turned against you when you attempted to make it look like it was justified when its the other way around. if the lead does it all, you should give up using the same reasoning that makes it null and void in the first place.

Recognition is based on readers, not "standard english". there are hundred of terms out there not recognized by standard english, yet still are used. thats not what MOSTM is about.Lucia Black (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. Our targer readership is anyone that can read standard english, not the people that visit WP frequently (which is a much smaller subset). MOS:TM is about taking the "wacky" spellings that companies like to do to smooth them out so that a reader of standard English can follow along even if they've not heard the topic before. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion. Wikipedia isn't the only place that uses such wording. And to think one has to be familiar with wikipedia in order to get used to such words baffles me. This is why sources always help. either way, your reasoning from before is flawed, so you have no room bolding that. and we don't go what "standard English" recognizes because the MOSTM although claims its about standard English, will only cover what it considers an issue. Yes standard english is a factor we primarily use when tackling names, but thats only when one can supposedly claim that it affects.Lucia Black (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner". --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Our goal (that is, the Foundation and thus us by extension) is to create a freely distributable encyclopedia that can be accessed and used by anyone in the world that can read standard english. This is a far different goal from nearly any other source that is going to be using the spelling "Numb3rs", most which are interested in covering entertainment news for those living in the US, Canada, and Western Europe (where they are going to sell their words). Our goal requires the use of standard English because our goal is unique to these other works. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

So with that new reasoning, you're going to have to withdraw the reasoning of readers ever needing to be familiar with Wikipedia in order to know the naming system.

Rob sinden, i really feel like you're aimlessly bringing issues on the side, but not seeing the picture as a whole. universally Numb3rs tv series is recognized with the 3 in it. this isn't an issue of what the trademark owner wants it to be recognized. and even for new readers, we should advertise a lesser known name simply because first time readers wont know. thats what i consider a big issue.Lucia Black (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You're ignoring the facility of redirects and/or disambiguation pages so that we can have both "Numbers" "Numbers (TV show)" and "Numb3rs" all get the reader to the TV show article, and then the first sentence of the lead will explain that "Numb3rs" is the stylized version of the name. So we are addressing both new and experience readers' expectations if they search for that name. --MASEM (t) 15:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

And here's your double-edged sword. this is the thing, that puts your entire reasoning against yourself. i suggest you give that particular reason up, because it doesn't help your case at all, it only further questions why the other way around can't be done. Whats so wrong with Numbers TV series redirecting to "Numb3rs" especially if theres no other series with the name "Numbers"Lucia Black (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Becasue "Numb3rs" isn't standard English and includes unpronounced characters. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This was already answered, and that is "Numb3rs".its been a battle of trump reasons from that point on.Lucia Black (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change

The second paragraph of the lede currently states:

• When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use by sources (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner. This practice helps ensure consistency in language and avoids drawing undue attention to some subjects rather than others. Listed below are more specific recommendations for frequently occurring nonstandard formats.

I have put the text that I have an issue with in bold... It would like to replace it with:

• When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use by sources (not invent new ones) and choose the style that is most commonly used by reliable English language sources that discuss the topic, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner. This practice helps ensure consistency in language and avoids drawing undue attention to some subjects rather than others. Listed below are more specific recommendations for frequently occurring nonstandard formats.

This change would, I think, move us away from the endless "I like it/I don't like it" arguments over stylization ... It is a consensus principle on Wikipedia that we should defer to source usage when determining which of several names to use when referring to a topic. I see no reason to do otherwise when it comes to trademarked names. The preference of the trademark owner equates to the "Official" name - which we can use (if a significant majority of other sources use it)... but which we do not necessarily use (we wouldn't if other sources use something else instead). Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. We should not be sourcing style, that's why we have a Manual of Style. Use of a trademark styling draws undue attention to the trademark. Your proposed change also contradicts the second sentence regarding "consistency in language" and "undue attention". --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It also contradicts a lot of the rest of the guideline regarding unpronounced characters, etc., etc. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: We should not be sourcing style... when it comes to names, yes, we should. Names (including how they are stylized) are facts, and deferring to sources when it comes to facts is a core principle in Wikipeida. As for my proposed change contradicting the rest of the guideline... no problem, just edit the rest of the guideline to get rid of the contradiction. Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This entire guideline is based around the principle that we should not follow the "official" styling of a trademark. The whole purpose of an MoS is to implement our own house style, and not follow the house style of the sources. Thus, we do not source style. The use of numbers or other characters as letters or words, or WP:ALLCAPS, or anything else described on this page is a style conceit, not part of the name of the entity. With what you propose, we may as well throw away this guideline (and possibly the rest of the MOS). --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly - this change nullifies the entire purpose of MOS:TM, which is designed to make commercial gimmicky names readable within WP prose. That is a purposeful house style that we have picked to improve accessibility. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

But it allows subjectivity. not objectivity.Lucia Black (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The current MOS:TM is very objective, much more than "going by the sources" where one can debate what are appropriate or inappropriate sources to consider. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"Yes, but subjectivity is objective." --Woody Allen --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: This entire guideline is based around the principle that we should not follow the "official" styling of a trademark. You misunderstand the proposal... My proposed change does not say that we should follow the "official styling" ... it says that we should follow source usage... there is a BIG difference there. Following sources is verifiable... following sources ensures a NPOV... following sources is gives DUE WEIGHT to different opinions... following sources prevents Origninal research... Following sources ensures Recognizability. In short... following sources is a core concept of Wikipedia. It is a concept that underpins almost every policy and guideline we have. At the moment, this MOS stands out as contradicting that underpinning concept. My proposal is an attempt to end the conflict and bring this MOS into sync with all those other core policies and guidelines. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

And again, I'll point to past discussions on naming issues where people wanted to slice and dice the available sources to name the article the way they wanted it, while slicing/dicing the sources another way favors a different approach. ("Oh, these aren't reliable sources, they should be discounted"). Using exacting rules is much more objective than trying to determine the most common usage from sources. We already routinely veer away from the exacting use of sources for other parts of the MOS (not just naming, but like when quoting or the like, or reference format, etc.) so there's no difference here. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Masem, you know that people attempt to "slice and dice" sources to support their POV in every POV dispute ... that is human nature. Yet, somehow wiser and calmer heads always seem to prevail in the end. The reliability of the various sources gets discussed... the sources get weighed, and DUEWEIGHT gets assigned. Examining sources may be a messy process, but it is how Wikipedia works. Choosing between a stylized name and a non-stylized name ("Numb3rs" vs "Numbers") is no different than choosing between a formal and informal name ("William Clinton" vs "Bill Clinton"). Blueboar (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

And what I'm saying that across all of our MOSs (not just MOS:TM) we routine discard what sources do in favor of a consistent house style aimed for readability and usefulness. Sources are important for things like in-article facts, and for things like Common Name when there are conflicts, but that's not the case here. --MASEM (t) 19:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose With that change, we might as well toss MOS:TM away. We adapted MOS:TM to make WP readable to all English readers and to smooth out the "tricks" that commercial entities like to apply to their tradenames to make them stand out. While a majority of sources may use this fancy style, it would harm the readability of the text, though certainly we should acknowledge this style in the first sentence of the lead so that readers will understand that if they see the "fancy" approach in sources, they'll understand it in external sources. Further, the argument that going by the sources removes the "like it/don't like it" arguments is false - in past discussions, the question of which sources should be accepted as to achieve one's desired "majority" has been played around. The way the MOS is currently written, it is the most objective way of dealing with the naming issues. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Compromise because then that would mean that the MOSTM overrides everything that has Wikipedia working for. if an entire series is properly sourced with third party sources, why should Wikipedia be the one to defy it if the entire article is supposed to be based on such article? As much as one claim its "objective" the editors still intend to look for a way to make an exception to every case, and once there is one that fits the bills for others (deadmau5) it will never end. So i believe this should be acceptable only if the sources are largely in agreement of what the name is. we shouldn't determine what is a "fancy" name. thats one thing that the contributors to this MOS need to know. we go by sources, and we shouldn't use our own personal opinion on what is fancy affect what title we should use.Lucia Black (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Just because an exception was made for deadmau5, we should not incorporate this into the MoS. It should remain exactlty that - an exception. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

BUt, an exception without reason might aswell be no exception at all and should be reverted. Numb3rs falls identical to deadmau5's situation. why it should be any different has to be specified. Its like you choose what you want to reason with.Lucia Black (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This is about a change to the guideline, not a specific case. We shouldn't be manipulating the guideline to fit a specific case - that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. (But "Numb3rs" is not "identical" to "Deadmau5" (it's more akin to "Se7en"), they are individual cases and exactly why each exception should be considered on its own merit) --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Uhm...no its not. And simply saying it is, isn't helping your point. Se7en has less sources and more sources providing that it is indeed called "seven" in fact it says that its "sometimes stylized as se7en" so obviously...not a good way to work with it. This change could help us figure things out without trying to classify something among ourselves.Lucia Black (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason "Deadmau5" is exceptional is that, as you argued then, there are people that pronounce that name "deadmau-five", making the "5" a pronounced character, and thus falling in line with our current MOS:TM. The "7" i "Se7en" and the "3" in "Numb3rs" are unproduced, universally, and thus MOS:TM applies there too. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't acceptable to you then, so why use it as a reason for countering this particular situation?Lucia Black (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I later argued for that approach in that past discussion, once it was pointed out that that pronunciation does reliably exist, thus making it a proper exception from MOS:TM. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Strong agree/Compromise In case you have not noticed, Rob Sinden and MASEM, this is not the first time that this type of argument has taken place, and it certainly will not be the last. If the concern is over trendiness, editors need to realize that not all creators or even trademark owners will explain why they went with one spelling and not the other (as in the case of thirtysomething). In those cases, there has to be a way to prevent confusion, especially if disambiguation and redirects are not enough, and edit wars based on personal preferences. There needs to be a consistent guideline for the handling of all trademarks, not just the ones that conform to standard English.

(Honestly, the current guideline is confusing when you read it and seems to allow people to arbitrarily make changes to articles just based on standardization or the lack thereof. The policy also may become a slippery slope which editors can use as justification to change the trademark's spelling even in the article itself.)

In my opinion, trademarks with nonstandard English names should be allowed if it meets the following conditions:

If the name is the most frequently used name in reliable English-language sources. In the case of sources such as newspapers, journals, magazines, and professional organization web sites, the name has to be predominantly used for the trademark when searching the web sites, not just in a few articles,

If the trademark's spelling is recognizable to readers,

If adding a disambiguation to the trademark makes it less concise,

If the trademark has a minor detail which makes it distinct enough to naturally disambiguate it from other articles with similar names,

If the trademark has primary usage and long-term significance in regards to any other topic associated with that specific term as to necessitate the trademark's spelling as a precise title, and

If searching for the trademark on Wikipedia would direct the reader to an entirely different article that has little bearing on the topic in question. (In this case, editors should attempt to find various expected guesses on Wikipedia before naming the article or changing the article's name.) SciGal (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

However, the point made on "If the trademark's spelling is recognizable to readers" is that while a certain fraction of our readers will understand things like "Numb3rs" or "Se7en", not all of en.wiki's target readers will. We aim to be as accessible as possible and using fancy spellings that make it difficult to read is not what we should be doing. --MASEM (t) 19:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Blueboar, Lucia Black, and I are looking at this from the point of view of a reader who is unfamiliar with the trademark comes across it on a web site or in a newspaper, magazine, or journal article from a reliable English-language source. If the reader uses Wikipedia to learn more about the trademark, the reader will most likely use the spelling that the source has used, not a Wikipedia naming convention.

Also, as you can see on the Talk:Numbers (TV series) page, having the proper spelling on the disambiguation page and the redirect to a different title does not stop an edit war; it might create one. In Numb3rs' case, it started with one editor changing the name based on MOS:TM, especially citing the section of MOS:TM that this proposed change addresses. Idealistically, this may have been prevented if someone included one or more sources in which the series' creators or the network had specifically stated the reason for the series' spelling. In reality, there may not be any evidence either for a deliberate spelling on the part of the show's creators or for the network's decision to stylize the name from a more standard English spelling. To prevent future edit wars over the same topic, we need some guidance.

I know that arguments similar to this will occur in the future, and that is why I support Blueboar's proposal. SciGal (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, the redirects allow for a search on "Numb3rs" to lead to "Numbers (TV show)", and the first lead sentence should explain the stylized name, so that confusion is not an issue. Yet keeping to "Numb3rs" makes it difficult to read for people unfamiliar with the term, particularly if they are coming from incoming links on other pages. And while I completely appreciate that the argument for "Numb3rs" via sources is strong if not near universal, this is the exception as to went sources agree; "Se7en" and "Ke$ha" are good examples where the sources are split and you can argue left or right as to which version is "right" depending on which subset of sources you use. That's why staying with what we have is the most objective, taking any future debate on the matter out the question save for limited cases. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The debate over the use of MOS:TM is why I have stated that we need guidance over at the Numb3rs page as the change from Numb3rs to Numbers (TV series) (complete with the redirect) caused an edit war. The sources are generally in agreement with each other as to the spelling of the show's name, but some editors are still insisting on the use of standard English in the article's title.

Getting back to the proposal, Blueboar's proposal most likely will allow for exceptions to the current policy, especially when sources using a nonstandard English spelling actually agree with each other concerning a specific spelling of the trademark. Hopefully, there will be fewer edit wars based on MOS:TM if the change is made. SciGal (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Blueboar's propose works without exception when the sources agree as being argued for Numb3rs (eg people are saying there's near 100% agreement on that so under the proposal that would follow). The problem is when you get to the Se7en and Ke$ha cases , where the sources are split not quite 50-50 (Ke$ha last I checked was 70/30 on using the $), that people will endlessly argue over that - as they have already before. The discussion at the Numb3rs page is because people seemed to flat out ignore MOS:TM as it stood, and if it was enforced properly, there would have been no argument. The current form of MOS:TM is extremely objective but would allow for the exceptions like deadmau5. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Not 100% for Numbers vs. Numb3rs - here are links to The Hollywood Reporter, TV Guide, Deadline, Chicago Tribune and The New York Times referring to the show as "Numbers". --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's possibly the reason why the proposal is worded the way that it is (and Blueboar, please correct me if I am wrong). There are editors out there who believe that MOS:TM trumps all other in-house Wikipedia policies (especially WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RECOGNIZABLE, WP:PRECISE, WP:CONCISE, WP:DIFFCAPS, and WP:POVNAME) and that there should be very few exceptions to the rule--even when you have 100% of the reliable English-language sources agreeing with each other on a nonstandard English spelling of a trademark. Under the current policy, to prevent an edit war, those who want the exceptions must have a separate section in the article that provides evidence from reliable sources that the trademark's creators and/or owners both had a specific spelling for the trademark in mind and had a reason (or multiple reasons) for the spelling.

Frequently, though, editors resort to using the spelling that they find in reliable English-language sources, especially when the intentions of the trademark's creators or owners are not stated or unknown. This proposal would (or should) allow for a new reader who has come across the trademark in a reliable English-language source to find information about the trademark on Wikipedia without accidently stumbling into an edit war among the editors which started because one or more editors favor a spelling that the sources do not frequently or near universally use. SciGal (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

To me the issue of Common Name is completely separate from the issues of MOS:TM, with the common name to be selected ignorant of the spelling stabilization. Kesha is a prime example. Her common name is one of Kesha or Ke$ha, but certainly not Kesha Rose Sebert (even though that's her given) name; that's what falls out of discussion over Common Name, ignoring the stylized spelling at the present time. With that then decided, MOS:TM says that we should then use the most english-like spelling, thus favoring "Kesha" over "Ke$ha". deadmau5 follows the same logic (deadmau5/deamaus over Joel Thomas Zimmerman), with the change that once at MOS:TM, as hinted before, the 5 is not always silent in the name and MOS:TM would thus allow for "deadmau5" over "deadmaus". The problem is that editors want to apply the MOS:TM rules at the WP:CN level but that's the wrong order of steps. You are still going to have issues over the common name, but if you take out the issue of how exactly it should be spelled while deciding on Common Name, the results should be easier to get to. The MOS considerations are the last step to make the work easily read, not to decide on when two significantly different names are out there. --MASEM (t) 00:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That's just it; editors are applying MOS:TM at the WP:CN level, especially in cases where all or universally all of the reliable sources agree on the spelling of a common nonstandard English name. In some cases, the editors who have cited MOS:TM as the reason for changing the article at the WP:CN level have started edit wars over Common Names. This proposal is designed to prevent that as it gives additional guidance in situations where generally all reliable sources agree on a nonstandard English spelling. SciGal (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Name and style are separate things. Once the name is decided per WP:COMMONNAME and relevant guidelines, then we apply style. The style does not form part of the name. There is no policy for WP:COMMONSTYLE, that's where our MoS comes into play. To take the Numb3rs example, it isn't a non-standard spelling: the name is "Numbers", but the "e" has been styled as a "3". --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Not quite... Names and style are sometimes separate things... but they are not always separate things. Sometimes a stylization is an integral part of a name. Our job as WP editors is to determine which is which. We do that by looking at sources. To give an example: the stylization "BEA_TLES" that appears on Ringo's drums (and some of the earlier Beatles albums) can be considered separate from the band's name... because sources do not use that sylization when discussing the band. However, the stylization of "deadmau5" is used by the majority of reliable sources that discuss that artist... therefor we must conclude that the stylization is not considered separate from the name... it is considered part of the name.

I would argue that when a significant majority of reliable English Language sources consistently present a name with a specific stylization... that stylization becomes the "standard English spelling" for that specific name. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"Deadmau5" was given an exception because it was in use pretty much universally. That's why we allow common sense exceptions. Your proposal seeks to weaken the guideline further, seemingly on the strength of this exception, affecting articles where it is not so clear-cut, and thus would cause far more problems that it seeks to solve. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Naming and style can be explicitly separated so that any potential conjoining (and thus debates) between COMMONNAME and MOS:TM are negated. As I read it "Kesha" and "Ke$ha" , and "deadmau5" and "deadmaus" are equivalent names under COMMONNAME, with different styling applied. I cannot think of a case where the style that a name is presented is created a new "name option" for COMMONNAME debate. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. As I read it "Ke$ha" is a distinct (unique) spelling variation of the name "Kesha"... "Numb3rs" is a distinct (unique) spelling of the the name "Numbers" (a more common equivalent would be the distinct spelling variation between Paine (surname) and Payne (surname)... These are actually the same name, with the exact same derivation and pronunciation... but the spelling changes depending on the specific person you are talking about). Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Those are two unique and acceptable spellings of a name in standard English. By introducing a character that is not a letter, it cannot be a spelling, and can only be a (vanity-)styling. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Take it a step further... how do you know that both "Paine" and "Payne" are acceptable spellings of the name in standard English? Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The different between "Paine" and "Payne" is a COMMON NAME issue, not a MOS:TM one. --MASEM (t) 22:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That does not answer my question... I asked: how do we know that both Paine and Payne are acceptable spellings? I think the answer is that both variations are used in reliable sources. And we know which to use for a particular person because those sources tell us which to use... because they use one or the other when referring to a particular person, so do we.

One could choose to render "Paine" as "Pa1ne". That does not change the spelling, just depicts an "i" as a "1". A style issue, not a naming issue. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

But you make the same argument about rendering "Paine" as "Payne" or vice versa... that choosing "i" or "y" does not change the spelling, just how the name is depicted. In fact, that is exactly what happened... back in the 1600s. Paine and Payne were considered identical and interchangeable... some people chose to render (spell) the name with an "i" while others chose to render it with a "y". (indeed, some people used both... switching back and forth at different times). In other words... Paine and Paine are all the same name... rendered (spelled) differently depending on the choice of the person. The same would be true if someone chose to render the name as "Pa1ne"... same name... just spelled uniquely. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

"i" and "y" are letters and can be used to spell words. if you were spelling "Paine" with a digit "1", it would be pronounced "PA-one-NE". --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Rob Sinden and MASEM, we keep having this argument every time a large group of sources cite a nonstandard English spelling. Under various versions of MOS:TM, the following would be disallowed on one aspect:

eBay, iPhone, iTunes, and deviantArt (initial lower case letter and capitalized upper case letter)

Yahoo! (use of exclamation point, and that is in the article's title)

Jeopardy! (use of exclamation point)

M*A*S*H (use of asterisks to naturally disambiguate the TV series from the movie)

WALL-E, IKEA, and GNOME (the desktop environment) (use of capital letters for the word)

xkcd, vi, and k.d. lang (all lower case letters)

Creative ZEN (use of capital letters in the second word)

HarperCollins (lack of a space between words)

WESCO International, Inc. and CLIF Bar(use of capital letters in the first word)

deadmau5 (initial lower case letter and unpronounced/mispronounced number)

Each time, there was a debate over the name, and each time, an exception had to be made under MOS:TM. (You should read the number of times that someone had argued that iPhone should not be allowed under MOS:TM.)

Blueboar's proposal would automatically allow exceptions to the rule while maintaining some aspects of MOS:TM. Time would still be used instead of TIME, and Spam (food) would be used instead of SPAM. Toys R Us would be standard English, as well as Alien 3. Heart or love would be used instead of ♥, as the standard English keyboard never supported that symbol. There also would be no debate over how to spell eBay, iPhone, or deadmau5. It would be strong enough for standard English readers yet flexible enough to prevent edit wars. SciGal (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Excluding Yahoo!, Jeoparody!, M*A*S*H, and deviantArt (and deadmau5) all those follow MOS:TM exactly. MOS:TM is not able converting all trademarks to standard English and outright ignore casing, but converting them to readable prose. Things like IKEA follow MOS:TM rules for initialisms, and using something like HarperCollins is fine as camel casing for combined names. All these are still readable in standard English. "Numb3rs" is not unless you know aprior that "3" should be treated as an "e". --MASEM (t) 22:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This also points to the larger problem, that people don't address their issues with naming problems here at MOS:TM and instead fight on individual cases and thus making a mess of the house style we have adopted. If people don't like that our house style demands "Numb3rs" should be at "Numbers (TV series)", that's an argument to get this page changed, than at the individual pages. Creating too many exceptions causes inconsisent practice in policy. --MASEM (t) 22:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

If we find that we are making "too many" exceptions... it is time to change the policy to account for all these exceptions. I think my proposal does this. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Your proposal negates the whole guideline, and suggests that we source style. Sourcing style goes against our entire MOS, and thus is completely unacceptable. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I have been going through the archives for MOS:TM, and I have noticed a general trend. A couple of editors would take offense over the spelling or language usage of the trademark in the article and decide to change it based on MOS:TM. After finding the change, other editors would protest over the change. The protesting editors would bring their concerns to MOS:TM as a last resort. During the debate on MOS:TM, editors opposed to the nonstandard English spelling or language usage would cite the necessity of preserving MOS:TM while those who wanted exceptions to be made for common usage of the nonstandard English would cite various Wikipedia in-house policies as justification for the exception. MOS:TM was finally changed to allow the exception. This cycle keeps happening time and time again in all of the cases that I have cited and most likely in others I have not.

Numb3rs is no different. One editor changed the title of the article on 10 June 2013, and the first mention of the article's change on the talk page was on 29 July 2013--a little over one and one-half months after the change had taken place. When discussing the issue over the title, only one editor insisted on the use of MOS:TM as rationale for the change in spite of counterexamples from Wikipedia's other in-house policies. Bringing the issue to MOS:TM was a last resort, especially when the possibility of a continuous edit war seemed inevitable. The editors there are having the same type of argument that had occurred with eBay, iPhone, Yahoo!, M*A*S*H, and every other example I have cited. I want to say that, in this case, Numb3rs possibly could have created the tipping point that has lead to a discussion about revising MOS:TM's second paragraph in general.

If MOS:TM's second paragraph is not changed to more readily allow exceptions, this issue will recur over and over again in the future, especially with products featuring trademarks with nonstandard English spellings that are most frequently used in reliable English-language sources. Edit wars will erupt. Editors wanting an exception to the rule in near universal usage would be forced to come here for guidance, and they would find only confusion as exceptions could be made but the second paragraph dictates that only standard English spellings would be allowed under MOS:TM. On the talk page, editors wanting a strict interpretation of MOS:TM will cite the necessity of maintaining MOS:TM's integrity even when the common spelling does not violate Wikipedia's other in-house policies. Blueboar's proposal is designed to lessen the frequency of the edit wars. SciGal (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The point is not to be making exceptions and to bring the text on WP into standard written English for maximizing accessability and readability. People that want to change the trademarks away from MOS:TM to what is in sources are going against this. We have a duty to avoid the common pitfalls of mass media (which do have well-known readerships, and can assume that "Numb3rs" will be understood as "Numbers") and be as general as possible with MOS:TM, even going to the extent of ignoring the majority of sources to use a version that causes no confusion to the new reader. That is the point of MOS:TM. Those that demand changes away from it are doing this improperly, unless we otherwise decide to completely nix MOS:TM in favor of COMMON NAME. But as long as there's agreement that MOS:TM has to exist, we have to ignore the sources if they get in the way of proper english. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – Style issues are not decided by sources – reputable, widespread, or otherwise. They are decided by, tadah, a WP:MOS. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support. "Closely resembles standard English" is a pseudo defined phrase. There is no "standard English". Better to refer to sources. "Sources that discuss the topic" (noting that the best sources are independent and reputable) are more likely to have considered the desirability of use of "standard" English than our editors are likely to be productive debating standard English to highly specific questions. Of course, this is within reason. We should have boundaries. Flashing or colourful text or images are undesirable, as are things that disrupt the flow of lines across the page, but "Sources that discuss the topic" surely have already beaten that path. In a project that welcomes untrained editors, adhering to the principle of being led by sources is essential. This MOS is a false god. The MOS must defer to any clear lead provided by sources. The MOS is a fallback where sources are lacking or unclear. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You cannot support the proposal as it stands as the second sentence contradicts the first (and the first contradicts the rest of the guideline). --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean. Can you explain? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, if we source style, it doesn't "ensure consistency in language" or "avoid drawing undue attention to some subjects rather than others". If we source style, then there's no need for the rest of this article (or indeed the rest of the MOS), as we would no longer be following the instructions on how to render trademarks given by this guideline. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Rob Sinden. "This practice helps ensure consistency in language". This is just a rationale, and I don't see contradiction. Consistency with with reliable sources means consistency with language, doesn't it? "Avoids drawing undue attention to some subjects rather than others" I'm note sure what you are thinking. I think you are thinking that there are styles that attract attention, unfairly, or to the setriment of the presentation of the article. If by this, you mean images, colours, flashing, animation, large small or varying font, then I agree, this should be maintained, and any change shouldn't weaken this. Probably ascii art, and boldface belong as well, but there could always be an unexpected special case. If you mean funny spelling, funny punctuation, use of numbers or common typeface characters, I think you worry too much. The rest of the guideline is not contradicted, but may need to be balanced against usage of standard English as evidenced in reputable publications, on a case-by-case basis. Do you note that the proposal does not refer to the primary source use?

If Numb3rs or M*A*S*H are used as standard English in reliable independent sources, if these independent reputable sources that usually use standard English accept these spellings with numbers or characters, then this is to be weighed against normal tendency to reject numbers and symbols in reproducing trademarks. To my reading, the effect of the change would be to encourage discussion of the prevalence of use in sources instead of discussion on what standard English is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

OK... I want to see where those who don't like the proposal draw the line... does MOS:TM apply to Psmith? While the subject is fictional (trademarked), it is clear that the "P" is purely a vanity styling/spelling. If MOS:TM does not apply... why not? Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a massive difference between a vanity spelling and a vanity styling. Spelling is not discussed on or covered by this guideline. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Psmith requires WP:WAF, not MOS:TM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, arguably, even in fiction, I would expect MOS:TM to apply to names that otherwise would "break" spelling and casing, eg we use WALL-E properly as an initialism and thus all-caps is allowed, as well as something like R2D2 or C3P0 (those numerals are pronounced). (I can't think , however of an immediate counterexample where we would have to adjust the name due to MOS:TM, off hand). "Psmith" is fine because that's 1) normal casing for English even if not an English work and 2) how we would know the character by COMMONNAME. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

So what is objected to is not unique "vanity" renderings of a name per-say... but a specific form of vanity rendering (using numbers and other characters in the place of letters of the alphabet)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs)

The objection that MOS:TM presently addresses is where the trademark is a vanity spelling/casing/presentation when there is a clear, obvious, non-vanity spelling/casing/presentation that matches how the term is otherwise said in spoken English and would make it match the normal style of English that we use throughout the rest of WP. The issue is not any "specific" form of vanity spelling, but any type of vanity spelling, which, by definition, implies there's a non-vanity, "saner" way of presenting the same term. This minimizes the possible difficulty that an English reader completely unfamiliar with the term will have when they read WP and encounter it. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: "...otherwise said in spoken English"... ah... NOW I think I understand why we disagree ... you are focused on spoken English... while I am focused on written English. What my proposal is attempting to do is account for situations where there is a clear, obvious, (vanity) spelling/casing/presentation that matches how the term/name is presented in written English (as determined by a significant majority of reliable sources). To reach a compromise, we need to account for both... but I think more weight should be given to written English (as this is primarily a written medium) Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Even with written English, the purpose of the MOS is to maximize readability and accessibility. Thus for one, we have to consider what screen readers will do with such vanity spellings and if they vary from how the names are otherwise normally pronounced, that will cause confusion. Additionally, we cannot assume that the average en.wiki is going to understand the vanity spelling. If we were only worried about how US and European readers would take it, sure, I'd have almost no objection to "Numb3rs". But we've got a much more global reach and with people unaware of these pop culture concepts. Vanity spellings will be confusing and difficult to read as written. ( "Numb3rs" might be one of the more benign cases, but the idea of the problems this creates extend past that).

To add another point, the vanity spelling issue might seem trivial when working in the microcasm of a single article space, but we already have to remember that we have intra-wiki links. Using MOS:TM to standardize vanity names makes it easy for someone working on an article to link and discuss a term that may have a vanity spelling by simply using the non-vanity spelling, assuring consistency across WP for how that term is presented. If you go by "use the sources", that means that if I wanted to link to the show "Numb3rs" and talk about it in a different article, I'd have to see how the article's consensus on the name is, and that's a lot of extra work.

Again, I'm not saying following the sources is bad - this is what should be done to justify the common name. But when it comes to how it is presented in our running prose, we should use the most readable, benign version of the name, and that means the non-vanity version, as the rest of of MOS:TM dictates. That shows no preferences to any specific company or organization by having that simple set of rules. --MASEM (t) 17:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Masem, Numb3rs has been and/or is viewed in the United Kingdom, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Turkey, Israel, Bulgaria, India, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan, Thailand, Brunei, China, Cambodia, Laos, Macau, Malaysia, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, and New Zealand. In all of the countries, the show is named Numb3rs. SciGal (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

And yet, that's only a fraction of the people we expect to be potential readers of WP. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Two points: first, I completely support the compromise proposed by Lucia Black, and the points raised by SciGal. In particular, I think it makes far more sense to use Numb3rs, which naturally disambiguates itself from Numbers, rather than change the spelling of the title and add a parenthetical to disambiguate, creating the inaccurate and cumbersome Numbers (TV series). Second, it is important to distinguish between trademarks as commercial elements, and stage names or titles of works as creative elements. k. d. lang is at an unconventional title, but it clearly does not fall within the governance of this policy because that title is addressed as a stage name, and not at all as a trademark. That is an equally reasonable distinction to make with respect to deadmau5. We don't change Lordz of Brooklyn to "Lords of", or Inglourious Basterds to "Inglorious Bastards" just because their respective performers or authors choose to use an incorrect spelling, because these represent their artistic choices. Why should it make a difference that the perceived error is use of a number, rather than use of a wrong letter? bd2412 T 17:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

If only it were so. If you look at the US PTO site, you'll find that k. d. lang is a registered trademark for goods and services (including musical performances), and it owned by Katherine Dawn Lang (I didn't check the spelling just now, but something like that). That's why not all of us agreed with you on title styling decisions for Deadmaus and Ms. Lang. Dicklyon (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That is really quite irrelevant. There are millions of words and phrases that are registered trademarks, but which have uses distinct from their use as trademarks. For a clear example, Nothing Compares 2 U is not the subject of a trademark registration, but uses non-conventional orthography. We would not change our treatment of this title if, in addition to being a song title, it was also registered as a trademark by the artist. Furthermore, Lordz of Brooklyn does have a trademark registration, but I see no one suggesting that it should be moved to a correctly spelled "Lords of Brooklyn". We should therefore be consistent in treating stage names and titles of works as creative titles first, and not apply WP:TM to titles unless the title is only a trademark, and the name of a product is purely commercial. bd2412 T 21:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose and reject the premise that "It is a consensus principle on Wikipedia that we should defer to source usage when determining which of several names to use when referring to a topic." The WP:COMMONNAME principle is a strategy in support of the recognizability, one of five titleing criteria, not a principle that overrides all criteria and styling guidelines; we do consider source usage, and put a lot of weight on it even, but we don't defer to it. Similarly, style guidelines for trademarks serve a good purpose, which this proposal defenestrates. Dicklyon (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, and pretty strongly at that. We get to decide our own style; we shouldn't outsource it to a "vote counting" among sources, which runs into issues with how to aggregate all the data, how often to run such aggregations, and if/how to weigh the different "value" that a source like the AP should have versus a source that might pass the "reliable" threshold, but that's less reliable than the AP. Not to mention how reliable it is in matters of style. Yeah, I definitely say it's better to use our own style guide. Now, that's not to say that we shouldn't look to our sources to figure out what styles are standard English. And we do that already! Croctotheface (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There might be two problematic phrases within the second paragraph of MOS:TM. Blueboar mentioned the first--"conforms to standard English". (By the way, besides WP's own MOS, what other style manuals state that a writer or a group or writers can change the written appearance, including spelling and capitalization, of a registered trademark so that the trademark's spelling and appearance conforms to standard English?)

The second is "regardless of the trademark owner's preference". That second phrase could cause Wikipedia to violate trademark and copyright law. Apple, Microsoft, book publishers, television and film studios, and other corporations could sue Wikipedia (all of us) if the company feels that an editor's or a group of editors' insistence on the use of standard English for trademarked names either misrepresents the trademark, misrepresentation of facts surrounding the trademark, or violates fair use of the trademark That can be found in the following sections of the United States Patent Office's Trademark Law (Pages are for the above link.):

37 C.F.R. Part 6--Classification of Goods and Services under the Trademark Act (pages 107-109)

Title X, § 45 (15 U.S.C. §1127) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (pages 224-225)

§ 34 (15 U.S.C. §1116) (pages 210-213)

§ 43 (15 U.S.C. §1125) (pages 217-221)

A trademark owner might take action as the owner can lose their rights to a trademark if the public predominately associates the trademark with many products, not just one.

In addition, case law also dictates that trademarked material includes a band's name, a product's design, literary characters, the editing of television series from other broadcasters, and domain names. Titles of a series are included because of the achievement of a secondary meaning--that is, recognizability. Distinctiveness is determined by the trademark's usage in periodicals.

Also, case law indicates that trademarks can be arbitrary or fanciful (that is, having no resemblance to the product in question), suggestive (creating a mental association with a product's characteristics), or descriptive when it receives a secondary meaning (recognizability from the descriptiveness of the name). That might influence the spelling of the trademark. SciGal (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

If anyone wants to check to see if any of the names we have mentioned are trademarked, go to the United States Patent Office's web site, and search for the names under trademarks. That should tell you whether the names are trademarked and how.SciGal (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Using "Numbers" instead of "Numb3rs" (assuming that last is trademark) in of itself is not misrepresentation of the trademark. That would be using the trademark (proper spelling or not) in a derogatory way or anti-commercial way. Consider the case of Macy's which last I checked included the star mark. I don't have the ready ability to reproduce that star in plain text but that's not at all misrepresenting Macy's trademark. So the legal issue is non-existent here. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I checked myself; Numb3rs is the official registered trademark, and based on other examples of trademark policies, CBS and Paramount Studios would want us to use Numb3rs, not Numbers. The trademark policies I have been reading (including Wikimedia's own policy) states that the trademark has to be used exactly to prevent a lawsuit.SciGal (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

@SciGal, I have been a trademark lawyer for the better part of the last decade, and I can assure you that Wikipedia is under no legal obligation to use a trademark owner's preferred orthography, so long as we do not do so in an effort to sell our own competing product, or otherwise misrepresent the actual qualities of their product. With respect to titles of creative works, however, we might indeed run afoul of the moral rights of the artist, which is a matter of integrity. bd2412 T 22:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Further to that point, the WMF has lawyers to worry about such things; it is not up to us editors, lawyers or otherwise, to invent legal problems or solutions. The WMF attorneys will let us know if we try to do something that worries them legally. Dicklyon (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

An example where trademark law is relevant is Encyclopædia Britannica, which is an uncommon orthography for a work that is commonly cited as a rival to Wikipedia. We would face no legal hazard if we used the common and more conventional "Encyclopedia", but we would get in some trouble if we spelled the latter portion "Britannikuh" in an effort to make them look foolish, and thereby draw away their readers. bd2412 T 22:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree on the violation of moral rights, but what would happen if a company sues Wikipedia on the grounds that the editor's insistence on the use of standard English dilutes the product's distinctive as dictated by the nonstandard wording, spelling, etc.? For example, suppose in 2350, SkySk8Park5 wants to sue Wikipedia because editors have been using "Sky Skate Parks" in their article. What would happen then, assuming that US trademark law is the same then as it is now? SciGal (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This isn't going to happen, unless we are grossly mis-representing SkySk8Park5. Usign a clean English version of their name while discussing them in entirely encyclopedic, biased manner has no legal standing because there's virtually no monetary damage done that can be sued against. The legal aspect of this argument is a non-starter. --MASEM (t) 00:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

bd2412 T, I re-read what you had said earlier about the nonconventional spelling, and I definitely agree with you about the treatment of titles as creative elements. (That's how this entire debate started; an editor applied MOS:TM to a title because of unconventional spelling, and others noticed when the title of the article changed.) My comments about trademark law is because I checked out a name on the US PTO's web site and have been thinking that we could find ourselves in legal trouble for trademark infringement. That said, I still believe that MOS:TM's second paragraph, as it stands now, does not allow for many exceptions and that the change to "is most commonly used by reliable English language sources that discuss the topic" will allow for many cases of unconventional spelling. SciGal (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – I think I can understand where the other side is coming from, but my own perspective on this is pretty much what User:Dicklyon has expressed in his "oppose" comment. This kind of change goes against what this guideline is trying to achieve (recognizing of course that there will be occasional exceptions). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has answered the question some of us may have been asking (and I know I have): Which style manuals, other than Wikipedia's own, authorizes individual writers or a group of writers to change spelling or wording of the title of someone else's book, magazine, journal, television show, film, radio program, web site, webzine, forum, etc., so that the title conforms to standard English? SciGal (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't check for sure, but lookng at the archives here (such as [1]) it suggests that at least the AP, NYTimes, and Wall Street Journal's MoS all support altering casing and spelling to keep to standard english. But I can't check those MOS directly (they're paid-for sources) --MASEM (t) 21:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The Australian and many, possibly all, of its Australian News Ltd stablemates do not use any diacritics, accents, cedillas; I'm sure they do so without any legal hazard. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with Dicklyon, that "It is a consensus principle on Wikipedia that we should defer to source usage when determining which of several names to use when referring to a topic." is too strong. We shouldn't defer. We should "weigh" and "balance". I think this is generally agreeable? However, I think the following should be true: "Wikipedia should not use a title that is not used in any reliable source, if there are reliable sources using a reasonable style". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Michael Bednarek, the lack of diacritics, accents, and cedillas are actually not as problematic as regular spelling.

SmokeyJoe, weighing and balancing have been problematic. There have been several instances in the archives where the nonstandard English spelling (such as Sunn O))), TechN9ne, and "Thnks fr th Mmrs") as been the most common usage in the majority of reliable resources, but an editor or a group of editors have been using a few instances of the more standard English spelling as justification for MOS:TM. That is why we keep having this argument. (There are 15 pages of it since the page's creation in 2006, and this will make page 16.) SciGal (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Becuase MOS:TM was designed to be the global metric, and what happens is that editors with a high interest in a topic that see it named "wrong" (but correct per MOS:TM) complain and try to fight it, and since these discussions normally take place on the isolated individual pages, the people that know how MOS:TM works aren't usually aware of these issues. This is clearly, looking at the archives, a long term people with how MOS:TM is taken. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

So, if MOS:TM's second paragraph was designed to be static, why do we have at least 28 exceptions made to MOS:TM over the course of 15 pages of archives?

Also, these discussions most likely have started on the individual pages, but the editors who insisted on applying MOS:TM to a case that could easily be an exception forced the editors who have used a common but "nonstandard English" name for a topic to come here for guidance. The editors who needed the exception found confusion as to why their pages easily could be exceptions to MOS:TM but that the second paragraph of MOS:TM would not allow it. In the case of pages containing names of artists and titles of works, MOS:TM's second paragraph appears to override the traditional rules of standard English, which allows those names and titles to be treated a bit differently than basic grammar would otherwise dictate. That is when the arguments begin here between the editors insisting on the strict adherence to MOS:TM's second paragraph and the editors who found a more common, but considered "nonstandard English", name for a topic. SciGal (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

What 28 exceptions? If you're talking that list that you included above, nearly all of those follow MOS:TM's guidance with specific cavaets (like single letter lowercase terms like iPod). The point of the MOS is commonality across all pages, not just the one page of interest of a single page, and that's why there's constant arguments when one's favorite band or show or the like has MOS:TM applied (fairly) and they think that's wrong. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Those, (plus the three that I named earlier and Sk8r Boi, 4ever, Oliver!, DearS, U + UrHand, CNET, and NARAL). They all were included in MOS:TM after the debate took place. SciGal (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, those all follow the MOS:TM for the most part (eg, those using all caps are all initialisms, which is appropriate and one the rules spelled out). There was a comment above that when it comes to creative works (not trademarks) that there is something about sticking to the artist's intent for something like "Sk8r Boi" which MOS:TM does not apply to. --MASEM (t) 02:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Masem... I am not sure I understand your reasoning here... suppose we have a rock band with the vanity spelled/styled name: "H8" ... and their first song/album is eponymously entitled "H8". Are you saying that "H8" is acceptable in an article about the song/album (since that is not a trademark, and thus not governed by WP:TM), but "H8" would not be acceptable in the bio article on the band (since it is a trademark in that context, and thus not allowed under MOS:TM)? Would we have to say: "In 2014, "Hate" released their epomymously titled first album H8"? Blueboar (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I personally am not 100% convinced that we shouldn't "correct" English titles of non-trademark titles as we would with trademarks (also, how many bands actually register trademarks on their name? 'H8" is a bad example in the case that they assumed people were call them, verbally "hate", the 8 is a pronounced character, so "H8" would be reasonable, just as it is in "Sk8er Boi". A better contrast would be, say, a band called "1337" (meant to be "Leet" (the short form of "elite") and pronounced that way) and a song in the same fashion. We'd already change the name of the band per MOS:TM , I'd see no reason to not also change the song name. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's apply your thinking to a band name like INXS? If you have never heard of this band before, you would not know how to pronounce the name just by looking at it... You might wonder whether it is pronounced as one word ("Inks") or whether each letter should be pronounced separately ("Eye En Ex Ess"). Thankfully the article actually tells us how it is pronounced... the very first sentence of the lede states:

• INXS (pronounced "in excess", In-XS)...

To my mind, that is spot on... That is how we should explain the pronunciation of all vanity styled/spelled names. I would have no problem with an article entitled "1337"... as long as you explain the pronunciation in the opening sentence:

• 1337 (pronounced: "Leet")...

If you include a parenthetical in the first sentence, all confusion as to pronunciation goes away. From then on, the reader knows how to pronounce the stylization. Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

And this is where sources get applied, but after deciding on the common name. INXS is a good example - it is not an initialism but its also not a real word. When you look at sources, there is no alternate way INXS is present at all (majority of sources or not), it's not a real word and making it normal case ("Inxs") is just as confusing as leaving it alone. As such, this would be a exception to everything else and it seems best to leave it as INXS. (Constrast with KISS , which is widely pronounced as "kiss"), is not an initialism, and so using "Kiss" is quite appropriate. And a thing to remember in this is that we're not just talking about the use of the name on the page about the topic representing that name, but across all WP. For example, we're talking about how to present "Numb3rs"/"Numbers" on a page like Judd Hirsch (one of the show's actors). There, the reader is not going to have the advantage of the clarification statement in the first lead sentence. That's why doing the best to remove vanity spellings all across WP is important. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Kiss (band) is a bad contrast, because there we actually do follow reliable sources and don't use the "trademarked" all-caps "offical" styling of the name. A quick look at several high end sources (ex: [http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/kiss/biography Rolling Stone magazine) show that the band's name is not routinely written in all-caps case. So, while the all-cap version may be the trademarked "Official name" preference of the band, the COMMONNAME presentation preferred by Wikipedia is: "Kiss".

As for pronunciation... let us suppose the band's name was pronounced "Kizz" (its not, but plese assume for the sake of argument)... I think we would still follow the sources as to how to write the name. We would still write the band's name as "Kiss" ... and explain the odd pronounciation in a parenthetical in the first sentence. We would deal with pronunciation by writing: Kiss (pronounced "Kizz") is a rock band... etc. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Masem, INXS isn't a word, but it's suppose to be pronounced as if it was. "In excess". Numb3rs is the same thing. Its also heavily sourced by using "Numb3rs" consistently, another reason why 1337 (Leet) doesn't work is that its poorly sourced, and there is large amount of variants of the spelling. But considering that the spelling is a form of language, meaning the english way of spelling it would still be "Leet" unlike other names.Lucia Black (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"Numb3rs" is not pronounced "Numb-three-rs"; the three is a vaniety character. INXS has no vanity characters and there's no sourcable substitute (outside of saying it is a play on the phrase "in excess"), so we're "stuck" with the only existing spelling "INXS". --MASEM (t) 02:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, you have to separate COMMONNAME from MOS:TM. There is only one debatable name for KISS the band under CN - that's "KISS" irregardless of casing. At this point MOS:TM takes over and says because that is simply a full cap version "Kiss", and not an initialism, then irregardless of sources, we lowercase it. If the band used the name "KIZZ" but prounced it "kiss", which is completely non-proper English nor a dictionary word, then we'd have to see what other alternate ways of presenting that name exist in sources. If there are some that use "Kizz" and some that use "KIZZ", we should prefer the former for sake of readibility. If on the other hand the only apparent use of KIZZ was "KIZZ" by sources (the INXS case) we'd stick with that. --MASEM (t) 02:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree... I don't think we should separate MOS:TM from COMMONNAME ... indeed, in many cases we simply can't separate the two. There are situations where a stylized spelling is considered an integral part of a name, a name routinely used by reliable sources. When this occurs, MOS:TM needs to account for that COMMONNAME. Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

CN and MOS:TM were designed separately and every case that has come to the table can be separated. CN deals with issues like using a nickname verse full name, or one English spelling over another, or using a foreign term over its English translation, or the like, and for all purposes, technically is limited to what the article is named and titled. Once that is decided, everything else is about how the title is stylized in prose, which applies to all of WP. There is a very defined line between where CN stops and MOS:TM takes over. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Sigh... no, there isn't a fine line... there is a blurry line with an area of overlap. WP:CN and WP:MOS overlap (in a contradictory way) when a significant majority of reliable sources routinely use a name with stylistic spelling when referring to the subject. But you obviously don't want to hear that. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm strongly standing by that if you separate the concerns of casing, vanity spells, and extraneous characters, from the actual text that forms the name, any naming debate can be separated into a CN part and into a MOS:TM part. Every naming debate that I've seen can be broken down this way, and once you do that, the application of MOS:TM is straight forward, particularly as that applies across all articles, whereas CN is only in naming of articles. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

MOS:TM still only applies, by its own terms, to trademarks. It is inapplicable to titles that use nonstandard orthography, but are not trademarks, which leads to an arbitrary division based on things that have nothing to do with what title the reader will recognize or whether a title can be pronounced. bd2412 T 16:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change - arbitrary break

I believe as MOS:TM stands right now, could be more harmful to wikipedia as it plays the exceptional role for most of the way naming works (both outside wikipedia and in).Lucia Black (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

And that's by design to help normalize the prose for the majority of readers. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Masem, and anyone else who is interested, I was surfing online, and I found a copy of the AP Stylebook online--for free. It's through the Illinois Math and Science Academy in Aurora, Illinois, and it looks as though the entire book is online. SciGal (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

A check of that shows that they tell you to capitalize trademark, brand, and service names irregardless of casing. However, judging by the table of contents I can see for the Chicago guide, I don't think this is the full guide for the AP, but more a quick handbook. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the capitalization of services marks, trademarks, and brand names. I also have noticed that the AP Stylebook mentions that the only things that you can do to titles of books, operas, plays, poems, songs, movies, computer games, television shows, and works of art are to place them in quotation marks, translate foreign titles, and to capitalize the titles. If a show is named after the star, there are three ways to write the name. (By the way, I checked the publishing date on the book and saw that the stylebook was published in 2000. That may explain the short nature of the stylebook.)

Also, I was able to check out a copy of the latest version of CMOS for free. CMOS recommend that you do not change the spelling of a title of a work, television show, radio program, or movie. If a work has non-Latin characters or numerals in it, you are to keep them in the title as is. In addition, CMOS recommends that you use the preferred spelling of trademarks, artists, and spellings within a discipline. The only time that spelling can be changed is if you need to change the spelling of non-American English to maintain consistency. According to CMOS, eBay and iPad can be used at the start of a sentence instead of EBay and IPad. SciGal (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Without seeing the other style guides, this at least shows there's not strong consistency on handling trademarks with unique casing, meaning that MOS:TM which allows us to modify them is not going against every other style guide out there (a reason to not change casing otherwise if we're doing something that unique). I will point out that most of those guides are aimed at readership in the United States, while we're aimed at worldwide readership, a reason to be different from something like Chicago's. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

There's that confusion of spelling again. You cannot spell "Numbers" with a "3" or "Kesha" with a dollar sign because they are unpronounced. By re-rendering the stylised characters as normal characters, you are not changing the spelling. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

And there's that confusion between spelling and pronunciation again... spelling and pronunciation are two distinct things. We can deal with pronunciation by including a parenthetical remark when needed... along the line of: In 2005 Foo became the lead kazoo player for the band Tw33t (pronounced: "Tweet"). Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Rob Sinden, from what I have been seeing so far, all of the style guides that I have been reading do not tell writers to change the spelling of the title of a book, computer program, web site, blog, television show, movie, radio program, podcast, poem, play, or opera. You have to leave the spelling as is, even if people hate the spelling. This is the only place where one sentence of one paragraph gives editors the right to change the spelling. SciGal (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, I have yet to see these style guides address the issue of vanity spelling (from the limited details I can see), which is a relatively "new" thing. And again, I point that those guides are written not necessarily that the readership is as wide as we write towards. --MASEM (t) 17:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I had to look up the term "vanity spelling" as I have never heard of the term before this argument. I would be inclined to agree with you--if the artists and/or authors paid for the entire production process themselves. Since most literary works, computer programs, and media presentation (e.g., movies and TV shows) are not paid for by the people involved in the production process, we should use the names that we have been given by the companies involved in the process. SciGal (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, vanity spelling, as I use it here, is using replacement non-alphabetic characters for otherwise standard English ones ("Numb3rs" for "Numbers", or "Ke$ha" for "Kesha"). It's akin to "l33t" spelling. --MASEM (t) 17:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The thing is... While such spellings may have been originally created due to vanity... once a significant majority of reliable sources (especially highly reliable sources) accept it - and routinely use it when discussing the subject - the spelling can no longer be dismissed as mere vanity. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Question... what if someone legally changes the spelling of their first name from "Peter" to "P3t3r"? Would you allow the vanity spelling in that case? Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You could not legally change your name to something containing numbers or symbols. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Why not? Are there statutes that ban it? Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably for the same reason that we shouldn't be entertaining it here. But yeah, certainly not legal in UK, US, NZ. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Minnesota's Supreme Court once ruled that a man who wanted to change his name to the number "1069" could not legally do so, but suggested that "Ten Sixty-Nine" might be acceptable. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. thanks. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I will go a step farther than that and say that before WP:TM is applied, it must be determined that the title at issue is primarily considered to be a trademark, as opposed to the title of a work. Nothing Compares 2 U is not a trademark at all, and so WP:TM is not applicable to it. Deadmau5 and Numb3rs may have trademark registrations, but do people look at those and say, oh, a trademark? Or do they first and foremost think of them as the name of an artist and the title of a work. Compare a theoretical breakfast cereal called "Gr8 Nuts", which is clearly merely a trademark. bd2412 T 16:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... interesting point. Let me see if I understand what you are saying: WP:TM only applies to trademarks... so, if a name isn't trademarked, then WP:TM's restrictions on "vanity styling" would not apply. (is that correct?) Blueboar (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

This begins to raise the issue between the various conflicts between MOS:TM, WP:UE (which talks about when to use special characters like diacritics in proper names), and WP:CN. I'll note that UE does suggest we don't have to be exact with special characters but says to look to sources as well. What I think this pointing to is specific advice on vanity spellings, where non-alphabetic characters are purposely replacing alphabetic ones and are not part of the name's normal pronunciation, irregardless if a trademark or not. (eg Numb3rs, Ke$ha, etc.) . Other cases of non-trademark, proper names which may not be "proper" english but doesn't require guessing which alphabetic characters are meant to be there (eg "Thnks Fr Th Nmrs") would be okay. Mind you, I'm thinking off the top of my head, but this suggests a larger discussion specifically defining what vanity spellings are and are not, and how to handle them (trademarked, proper name, or otherwise). --MASEM (t) 17:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Masem, I am glad you are finally understanding that there actually are conflicts between MOS:TM and WP:CN... that's a step in the right direction. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I still there is a way to separate the "naming" and the "styling" between guidelines, it's a lot easier than made out, but where the advice to follow (as there's differences between considering article titles and what to use in running prose) is not well-spelled out. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

On that we agree (what I think we disagree about are the definitions of what constitutes a "name" vs what constitutes a "style". In order to clarify which policy/guideline applies, I think we need to reach a community consensus on that disagreement). Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

According to MOS:TM (or even WP:UE), what should the book Easy as π: An Introduction to Higher Mathematics be titled? SciGal (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well... if we accept BD's argument... MOS:TM doesn't say anything about it. The symbol π isn't trademarked and therefore does not fall within the scope of MOS:TM. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you and BD there. It seems to me that MOS:TM has been applied to both definitions of the word "trademark", not just the first definition which we have at the top of the page. SciGal (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a pronounced character, and thus a WP:UE issue. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

@Blueboar, it is not just a question of whether the tile is the subject of a trademark registration ("trademarked" is not a legal term; use "registered as a trademark"), but of whether that is the primary significance of the term. There is no doubt that "Numb3rs" is the subject of a trademark registration, but people probably think of it as the title of a work before they think of it as a trademark. bd2412 T 21:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if this could be a solution to our situation involving nonstandard English trademarks and titles? SciGal (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It already is. Numbers, stylised as NUMB3RS, etc. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, this is already what is supposed to be done when there is a clear alternate name(s) for a topic to help the reader instantly identify they've arrived at the right page if they entered one of those other terms. --MASEM (t) 16:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Not quite... the question is this: which version is the primary and which version is the alternative? Certainly, if the stylized version isn't the COMMONNAME (ie is not routinely used by a significant majority of reliable sources) then we should present the stylized version as an alternative... HOWEVER, when the stylized version is the COMMONNAME (routinely used by a significant number of reliable sources) then we should do the exact opposite... presenting the stylized version as the primary name and the non-stylized name as the alternative... as in: "NUMB3ERS (alternatively: Numbers)". Blueboar (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

My point was not so much which is the right name or not, just that we have existing advice that for such cases where there is a common alternate version of the name (whether we consider the vanity spelling the alternate or the primary, that doesn't matter), then the first sentence of the lead should clearly identify that known alternate in bold text, so the reader immediately knows that the topic could be named one of two (or more) different ways. So the confusion the reader about what the title is is cleared up immediately if they aren't aware of it beforehand. --MASEM (t) 16:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Blueboar, you're trying to apply WP:COMMONNAME principles to style again. There is no WP:COMMONSTYLE guideline. We don't follow sources for style. The non-stylized version is primary per this and other guidlines. There is no consensus to change this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

No... I am applying WP:COMMONAME to names (and we do follow sources when it comes to names)... it just happens that the names I am applying COMMONNAME to contain stylization.

This is why I draw a distinction between the stylization in the BEA_TLES logo (where the stylization relates to font more than spelling), and the stylization in deadmou5 (where the stylization relates to spelling)... I fully agree that COMMONNAME would not apply to the BEA_TLES logo, as that stylization is not considered an integral part of the name of the band (we know this because the stylization is not routinely repeated by sources when they discuss the band). Howver, I feel that COMMONNAME does apply in the case of deadmau5... as the stylization is considered an integral part of that name (we know this because the stylization is routinely repeated in sources when discussing the artist). Blueboar (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

When you try to make that distinction, you are making the whole thing too messy. Irregardless of how the terms are visually presented, it's pronounced "The Beatles", as determined by COMMONNAME. Whether to use the bolt/capital T form is a matter or MOS:TM (which presently says to ignore those facts). --MASEM (t) 17:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I know what Blueboar is getting at. With a title, you can alter font, font size, font appearance (i.e., bold, italics, underline, superscript, subscript), etc. You, however, cannot change the exact alphanumerical characters in an English-language or a translated title. Those characters constitute the name of the title. I think that is what Blueboar is suggesting that we look at in deciding WP:COMMONNAME. SciGal (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes you can - "Seven" is a perfect example where the press regularly changed the "Se7en" to proper English. And we do do it with names to - we never bent over backwards to meet Prince's symbolic name or the album with the symbolic name. We call her "Kesha". "Deadmau5" is reasonable only because there is enough people out there that call him "dead mau five" verbally, making the "5" character integral. If people called "Ke$ha" "ke dollar sign ha" regularly, then yes, "Ke$ha" would be fine, but no one does. That's why it's important that how we present names has to be related to how they are regularly/commonly spoken and pronounced, and letters and symbols that do not at all factor into the pronunciation are a strong indication of vanity characters that we should ignore. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I was talking about Prince's symbol, which not even the high-level sources could pronounce or write. That was a purely graphical design. I was talking about the actual characters, as in Ke$ha and deadmau5.

Also, you cannot always rely on a standardized English spelling to lead you to the correct pronunciation of a word or a name. Take, for instance, Typhoon Haiyan. If I did not watch the news or listen to podcasts, I would have pronounced the name Haiyan "Hay-yawn" because of the "ai" and "a" phonemes in the Anglicized spelling of the name. The proper pronunciation, however, is "Hi-yin", something we English-speakers would not have been able to guess based on spelling. SciGal (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Sigh... I'll say it again - pronunciation is not a serious factor. Pronunciation can be easily explained in a parenthetical. If there is a concern as to pronunciation, just write: Ke$ha (pronounced "Kesha") is an American singer/songwriter... or In 1995 Brad Pitt starred in the movie Se7en (pronounced "Seven"). No, what matters here is basic recognizability. When a name is presented in a specific way in the vast majority of sources, that is how our readers will expect it to appear in Wikipedia.

Supporters of MOS:TM go on and on about the need to use standard English... but when a name is presented in a certain way by a significant majority of English language sources, I would argue that usage make the presentation standard... and not following the sources would be to promote a non-standard variant. Blueboar (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That's certainly an argument available to you under the current guideline. In fact, I think it's the argument that won the day (and the argument I advocated) for using "Deadmau5" instead of "Deadmaus." Croctotheface (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

A broader comment as well: as others have pointed out, MOSTM is a tool for figuring out what style to use when more than one style is present in sources. It's meant to help editors make non-obvious editorial decisions. It's important to remember that the vast, vast majority of the time, trademark owners preemptively decide to help us out by following the guideline to begin with by choosing a style that already comports with standard English. For those cases when they do not, I read this guideline as saying, basically, "We don't care that a style is 'official.' We do prefer that it be standard English." Most of the time, it's pretty clear. Sometimes, you'll have difficult cases. When you have difficult cases, then this guideline might not have all the answers, and that's OK. That's why we have discussion and consensus and all that good stuff. I'll point out one important difference between this issue and the stuff that WP:Commonname is designed to address. With WP:UCN, you're essentially asking a question like, "What name is most common" or "What would the average reader expect us to call this thing?" For something like "use the style that's most common in sources," we lose that sort of common sense question to ask and we're left with vote counting, which is difficult if not impossible. The average reader, if she reads high-level publications for a general readership (AP, NYT, BBC), would probably expect standard English. If the average reader reads stuff that owes more fealty to the bands/companies it covers, she might expect crazy nonstandard styles. Does this mean that high-level sources should have more "votes" in our tally? If so, how many more votes? This gets unworkable very quickly. Croctotheface (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Croctotheface... Determining COMMONNAME is not just a matter of counting up sources. We do give more weight to some publications and less weight (or even no weight at all) to others ... what concerns me are situations where high-level publications (AP, NYT, BBC, Rolling Stone) all routinely present a name in a particular way. This guideline does not account for those situations. It needs to. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does - it ignores that for favoring the most readable version that ignores fancy spelling. We are aimed at a global readership, readers having various degrees of familiarity of English and certainly without assuming they are aware of contemporary topics in Western countries, unless the readership of NYTimes, AP, etc. Hence, by choosing to ignore the vanity put into names (when we have a reasonable way to use regular English) we have a easy-to-follow guide that neutralizes extensive discussion. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

But when a name is presented a certain way by a significant majority of reliable sources (especially the high-end reliable sources)... it is no longer vanity. Sure, it may have started out as vanity... but routine use has transformed it into something that is accepted and standard. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

If there were a way to write the guideline such that it made clear that we have a strong preference for standard English, but that a situation where all high-level sources agreed on a style that looks nonstandard, I'd probably support it. I do not agree with Masem about this. The notion that this is entirely a value judgment that's about condemning "vanity" strikes me as much too prescriptivist. If a style is used in EVERY high-level source, then it's acceptable within standard English. Croctotheface (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 13:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Recap of Arguments

Extended content

Okay, for the sake of everyone else reading this, let’s recap the arguments made both for and against changing MOS:TM. Reasons for Change MOS:TM in its current form does not readily allow for exceptions to standard English. Even when exceptions are made, those with a similar type of issue (e.g., CamelCases, lowercase first letter and capitalized second letter) are considered in violation of MOS:TM as exceptions are made on a case-by-case basis. Readers who come across a subject that they have read in a reliable source may not find what they are looking for if the application of MOS:TM alters the spelling of a name. Articles containing titles of book, e-books, magazines, plays, poems, operas, songs, computer programs, television shows, movies, web sites, and blogs have been flagged for violation of MOS:TM if they use non-standard English capitalization and/or spelling in their names. Articles about artists, companies, and consumer products have also been flagged for the same reason. This happens even when the vast majority of high-level reliable English-language sources (e.g., the New York Times, the Associated Press) use the non-standard English version over the Standard English version. In some instances, the current guideline suggests that editors also change the names of foreign titles should the English translation contain non-English characters that have no English equivalent. For example, editors who use the current version of MOS:TM might flag articles with “Ojjj” characters as a part of their subjects’ names as the “Ojjj” characters are unpronounced in standard English. Several editors have raised concerns about the possibility of trademark infringement. If you want read these concerns, see the above section and read here, here, and here. (For that last one, the consensus seemed to be that WP should not use trademarks in a generic way as an “editorial obligation” [words of several members of that conversation], but there was a disagreement over whether to use the actual trademark or a generic term to describe products in an article.) Reasons for Keeping MOS:TM as Is Editors may not use reliable sources in writing their articles. The editors may use fan sites, Facebook, and Twitter feeds and not academic journals and high-level news sites (e.g., the AP, NYT, Time, Newsweek, USA Today) to gather their information. Global readers who are unfamiliar with a subject may be confused if a nonstandard English capitalization and/or spelling is used in an article, and the readers would have difficulty reading the article. Changes to MOS:TM to allow exceptions more readily will weaken the guideline. Did I miss any concerns? SciGal (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• COMMENT. This so-called "recap" is heavily skewed to promote a certain point of view, and does not accurately represent the arguments and points made above. I ask any editors coming here for the first time to take it with a pinch of salt. I've collapsed it for this reason. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the concept of a recap would be beneficial... so if you think SciGal's recap is problematic, perhaps you could write one that (in your opinion) does accurately represent the arguments and points made above. Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Rob Sinden, those seven reasons were the seven most common themes that run through 16 pages of talk:MOSTM. SciGal (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Rob Sinden, in case you missed it, I did ask whether there were any more reasons either for or against changing MOS:TM. SciGal (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• On point 2 of the "pros to change", this is what redirects serve. If "Numb3rs" was at "Numbers", searching for "Numb3rs" should find the redirect page that leads them to "Numbers". So the searching issue is a non-starter against the change.
• On point 3 of the same, we would have to make it clear that for a name that, via COMMONNAME, the foreign title is considered the right title and that title uses accented characters or anything similar (in the appropriate method for that language), MOS:TM is not telling them to change that. We would never have a title , per WP:UE, that consists only of non-English characters (like kanji). --MASEM (t) 20:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

But thats the problem, you see, by using the less common name (universaly less common) we also indirectly lie to the readers.Lucia Black (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Fancy spelling is a separate issue from common names. And no, it's not lying to the reader, when usually that alt spelling is the first thing mentioned in the lead. --MASEM (t) 22:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I should have split up point 2 into two different reasons, especially since I found both of the reasons both individually and jointly in the archive pages. SciGal (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Masem, first, how can you tell the difference between a nonstandard English spelling that was intentionally created to and a nonstandard English speling that was designed for promotional purposes, just by looking at the name itself?

Second, redirects are sometimes not enough, or they are nonexistent. To use a trademark/brand name example that uses standard English, if I saw the name Kiss (for the Kiss Canon EOS 7 camera) in an article in the New York Times, I would type Kiss in WP's search engine. I would then come to the page [Kiss]. I would then have to go to the disambiguation page to find "Kiss, a brand name for consumer-level Canon EOS cameras in the Japanese market since 1993". If I use the words "Kiss" and "camera" in WP's search engine, I would come to WP's search results page for those terms, and I would have to find what I was looking for. If I use the words "Kiss" and "Canon" in WP's search engine, I would come to another search results page where I would have to remember which camera I would looking for.

Also, titles of works and programs have been flagged for violation of MOS:TM numerous times. This is something that I have noticed many times in the archives. As for titles with non-English characters, the issue never was whether the entire title would be untranslated. The concern was that a character may not be translated into English when the non-English character is a part of the name. SciGal (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Common sense, not pendatic adherence, needs to apply here. It will be plainly obvious when a name uses a vanity character in its name instead of regular spelling; it may require someone that knows that native language to affirm that but that's not an issue to work policy around. As native English speakers, I expect that all of us can recognize that "Numb3rs" fits no normal English spelling/character rules, and if we come across, say, a French band that uses something odd, a persont that also speaks French can figure that out.

As for search, there is no issue if the person does not land on the expected search page on the first try in the search box, as long as the trailing of hat notes and disambiguation pages gets them there within two more links (assuming they typed the right term). It is impossible under any naming scheme that we can cover all possible cases that a user may be searching for, we simply need to make sure that the links to guide the user are clear and quickly get them at the point. MOS:TM is meant to be the policy used everywhere, hence why it needs to take priority on trademarked terms. --MASEM (t) 01:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Masem, is MOS:TM a policy or a guideline?

As for the spelling, common sense indicates that you can't judge the intent of the person who created the title just based on appearance. For that, you need to conduct research to see if a nonstandard English name was designed just for promotional purpose or was the actual name. In most cases, no one will mention the intent of using a specific character, so you cannot assume intent.

In the Kiss camera example above, I see your point, but our readers might not. In searches, there might not be any hatcaps to redirect you if you use words which lead you straight to search result pages. SciGal (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The various MOSs are guidelines but apply to all parts of writing, and thus have more weight than something like COMMONNAME that only applies to naming pages. Yes, we can figure out the intent of a entity that creates a vanity spelling that is nowhere close to proper use to of the native language, it's called "common sense". And if there are places where hatnotes should be but have not been properly applied, that's not a reason to change the naming policy for articles. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Every edit that is made on Wikipedia should be for the benefit of the reader. The question to ask, at the end of the day, is not about which style is approved by which house, but which title is most likely to be of the greatest benefit to the likely reader of a given article. It may be that the difference between, for example, Deadmaus and Deadmau5 is insignificant in this respect, and it may be that readers will tend to believe that Numb3rs is the name of the show, and coming across a different title might momentarily disorient them. I don't know whether that is really the case, but making that determination should be the hinge of our discussion of titles, and should be the hinge of our discussion as to the wording of policies on titles. bd2412 T 16:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

On redirects... I will just note that we could just as easily have the article at "NUMB3ERS" and redirect the non-stylized "numbers". Which version is the used for the article and which is the redirect is determined by WP:COMMONNAME.

As for using "common sense"... I reject the argument that WP:COMMONNAME only applies to article titles. To me it makes NO sense at all to use the COMMONNAME in the title, and then not use it in the body of the text. Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

MOS:FOLLOW contravention?

Statistics Canada publishes demographic census data on visible minorities. The order it presents the minority groups are as follows, based on largest to smallest populations: South Asian, Chinese, Black, Filipino, Latin American, Arab, Southeast Asian, West Asian, Korean and Japanese.

My inquiry is two-fold:

1. Is it contrary to MOS:FOLLOW to present this data within tables in an order of groups inconsistent with the order published in the StatCan source?
2. Is it contrary to MOS:FOLLOW to use different terms for the groups than those published in the StatCan source?

The concern about #1 is that some editors may reorder the groups to match their preferences for whatever reason, or it can be perceived that they have been intentionally ordered to align with someone's preferences.

An example of #2 is using "African" rather than "Black", or using "White" rather than "Not a visible minority", or in the case of Demographics of Canada#Visible minority and Aboriginal population, aggregating "like" groups into greater groups (like rolling Chinese, Korean and Japanese into "East Asian").

For your background, consider this discussion that triggered this inquiry.

Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

So, shall I take this inquiry elsewhere? Would have thought the watchers of this page would be resident experts on MOS:FOLLOW and could assist. Note it is recognized that the aggregation of "like" groups as the second example for #2 above also crosses into SYNTH/OR. Hwy43 (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to get to your comment. Personally, I do not see how MOS:FOLLOW even applies in this as MOS:TM primarily discusses trademarks and, as you can see, titles of works and programs. Have you considered asking the people over at [2] about how to label the groups? SciGal (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

SciGal, thanks. Took it at face value from the other editor that MOS:FOLLOW was likely being contravened. Reading MOS:TM in its entirety, I see it doesn't cover this issue. Should have looked more closely first. Inquiry withdrawn! Hwy43 (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Never heard of MOS:FOLLOW. I see it was added in Oct. 2013 in this edit. I've nominated the redirect for deletion and will delete the shortcut notice. This is a silly term for the section; we have lots of things to follow; why this one? Dicklyon (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter

"The exception is trademarks that begin with a one-letter lowercase prefix pronounced as a separate letter are not capitalized if the second letter is capitalized, but should otherwise follow normal capitalization rules:

   avoid: He said that EBay is where he bought his IPod.
   instead, use: He said that eBay is where he bought his iPod.

" Why not Ebay or Ipod? 78.35.203.149 (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

In most of these trademark names where it is "first letter lower case, second letter upper case, all remaining letters lower case", the first letter is meant to be pronounced separately and often is an initialism ("i" for "Internet", "e" for "Eletronic"), so they are presented the way they are pronounced - "eBay" is pounded "eee bay" and not "ebb bay") (as "Ebay" would imply), and "eye pod" as opposed to "ip pod"). --MASEM (t) 21:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I remember back in the '90s when I got a credit card bill with a charge for "EMILES" and thought I must have accidentally signed up with some new airline scam like eMiles. Turns out it was just the restaurant Emiles, as I figured out eventually. Anyway, these kinds of things, the initial-vowel pattern, are probably best treated as we say, which is what all reliable sources do, pretty much. I don't think you'd find any good sources saying Ipod or Ebay; if I'm wrong, hopefully it's few enough to dismiss anyway. Some stats: [3], [4]. Dicklyon (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Dicklyon has it right... we should follow the reliable sources, and present the name as they do. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Standard English and descriptivism

I've talked about these issues a few times on this talk page. With this guideline, I think that there's a much greater "risk" of bad outcomes from people who want to use a nonstandard style (like RAZR for the phone) that basically no high-level publication uses than there is from people who want to go nuts "correcting spelling" on everything because of their prescriptivist sense of what English is. The move to "Deadmaus" falls into that latter category, but it was corrected. I think that there's a rough consensus for something like my position: we prefer to standardize, but we need to use discussion to figure out difficult cases, and if there's a local consensus for a nonstandard style (even a local consensus I'd disagree with), that's not a big deal. I'm generally averse to changing the guideline because I think that there isn't really a problem with bad outcomes the way the guideline is written now. I think that the guideline as written has pretty much gotten us the sorts of results that most editors on the project feel OK about.

I also don't think that there's a disconnect between the language in the guideline and the actual practice of editors. So, for instance, "Deadmau5" looks nonstandard, but a more standard-looking alternative only barely exists in sources. In a literal way, using "Deadmau5" might appear to contradict the guideline. But my view is that "standard English" hews more closely to the practice of high-level publications that are widely read by general audiences and care about matters of style in a serious way. So if ALL those publications use "Deadmau5" and only a few less-than-significant-but-still-reliable-per-WP:RS sources use "Deadmaus" or whatever else, then it's pretty hard to say that "Deadmau5" is not standard English. The same thing would apply to iPod and eBay.

Now, I still have some fear that there are editors out there who want to "look for opportunities" to get rid of what I consider the heart of the guideline, the notion that we don't give weight to "official style" and that we prefer to standardize. There's been a lot of comments here that go something like, "Well, see, we're using iPod or Deadmau5 or ooVoo; therefore, we should use RAZR too." I don't want to make a change to the guideline that encourages that sort of stuff. I think that trying to make it "commonstyle" in the mold of WP:UCN would do this. I can just hear it, "Come on, everybody knows it's a RAZR! It says it right here on the box of my new RAZR which I love so much!" "Come on, everyone know's she's Ke$ha! It says it right here on her Twitter account that I'm constantly refreshing." In both those cases, high level publications tend to standardize. Within fan communities, they don't. Some reliable sources hew more to the fan communities, but high-level sources do not. Who's to say what's "common"? It depends entirely on perspective. But I don't think that most editors here want our articles to read like press releases, which is what would happen if we started using "RAZR" and whatnot.

So I'd be fine with amending the guideline with a short note or example interpretation of standard English. I'd want to make reference to the sorts of things I said here: high-level publications, style guides, caring about precise written language, and so forth. And I think that if the NYT standardizes, but other high level publications do not, we should still recommend standardizing. Editors can ignore that at individual articles if they reach a consensus to, and that's OK. If that's not OK, or if that means we need to scrap or seriously weaken the recommendation to standardize, then that just encourages editors who like this guideline to be WP:Battleground-y about it, and to go around to individual articles to attempt to bring them back into "compliance" to avoid the guideline getting trolled. Nobody wants that. Croctotheface (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: "there are editors out there who want to "look for opportunities" to get rid of what I consider the heart of the guideline, the notion that we don't give weight to "official style" and that we prefer to standardize"... I share that concern, and just want to make it clear that I am not one of these editors. While I strongly support the idea of a shift to "Commonstyle" (based on source usage, and heavily weighted to high-end sources)... I also strongly support making it clear that we give no weight to the "officialness" of a stylization. In those rare cases when the sources indicate that we should use the "official" stylization , it's because the vast majority of highly reliable sources do so... and not because the stylization is "official". Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

And the problem with using sources, even staying to high-level sources and avoiding "fan" sources for whatever the work is, will still cause debate beyond what already is a problem at COMMONNAME. This is because any editor with some savvy will be able to a present a seemingly fair argument that "these sources all use form X, only these few use form Y" to promote one way or another. COMMONNAME already gives enough problems per WP:LAME, we don't want that duplicated at MOS:TM. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Masem, you seem to think that debate is a bad thing... it isn't. Reasoned, constructive debate is part of the consensus building process... debate (otherwise known as discussion) is one of the primary ways we improve articles. Of course adopting a "Commonstyle" clause won't get rid of every debate... nor should it. What it will do is give us a consistent, evidence based mechanism by which the debates can be resolved.

The fact is, right now, we don't even get to the point where we can have reasoned, constructive debates about stylized names... any debates we do get quickly devolve into IDIDN'THEARTHAT stubbornness over which of the conflicting policy/guideline should take precedence. No, adopting a "Commonstyle" clause won't end all debates ... but it will give us a consistent starting point on which to base those debates. Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

We already have a consistent mechanism by which to resolve these debates. It's our MOS. Trying to source style will only make things more, not less difficult. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No, we currently have two competing mechanisms... this MOS and COMMONNAME. Blueboar (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No, MOS and COMMONNAME are two separate mechanisms. Common name applies first to determine which name is the best way to title an article, but MOS:TM applies to all prose and tells us how to present a name that maximizes readability to all English readers irregardless of what vanity spelling is done. There is a clear distinction here; CommonName is what tells us to compare Kesha to Kesha Rose Sebert (Kesha being the most common by sources), while MOS:TM tells us that once Kesha is selected by CN, to use "Kesha" over "Ke$ha". Same with Pink over Alecia Beth Moore via CN, while using "Pink" over "P!nk" via MOS:TM. --MASEM (t) 21:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a style/content distinction here. If there were a consensus that the dollar sign is an intractable part of what Kesha's name is, not just a different way to write the name Kesha, then we should probably use it under WP:UCN if it's more common. Croctotheface (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This is where the deadmau5 case falls - while the common way it is pronounced is "dead mouse", there are enough sources that also call it "dead mau five", making the five an integral part of the name in that case. On the other hand, no one pronounces "Ke$ha" as "key dollar sign ha", everyone recognizes the dollar sign is not prounounced as show, but really is an "S". Thus for sake for readability for the lower-common denominator for WP from MOS:TM's POV, we use the version that matches how the term is actually pronounced to avoid confusion. --MASEM (t) 22:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I consider pronunciation a useful test for sure, but I don't think the consensus view hinged on pronunciation in that case. Croctotheface (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Deadmou5... I have to agree with Croc. The pronunciation question may have been what convinced Masem and a few others to accept the consensus view, but it wasn't what caused the consensus to form in the first place. If you read the various AfD discussions, the consensus formed when it was noted that high-end sources routinely referred to the artist as "Deadmou5". The "pronunciation" argument was icing on the cake.

Re: Ke$ha vs. Kesha - the consensus in that debate also formed based on an analysis of the sources... what is interesting is that the analysis gave us a different result from the "Deadmau5" debate. Consensus formed in favor of Kesha (the current title) and against Ke$ha when an actual analysis of the sources was done, and it was discovered that the higher-end sources didn't routinely present the name with a dollar sign.

In other words... in both cases the consensus actually formed once people applied a sourced based "commonstyle" analysis. Yes, the two debates (appropriately) ended in different results ... but the mechanism that ended the debates and caused people to reach a consensus was the same. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@Masem, where does it say that "MOS:TM applies to all prose"? If the "prose" in question does not contain an actual trademark, MOS:TM does not apply by its own terms. bd2412 T 15:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

MOS's in general apply to every main article space of WP, where there is prose. MOS:TM, of course, should only apply to trademark , brand, and service names when used in prose --MASEM (t) 15:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Blueboar, I would contend that that analysis is less about what is a "common style" and more about what is standard English. That a source is high-level seems to say a lot about whether a given style is acceptable within standard English and less about how common it is. Croctotheface (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If MOS:TM applies only to trademarks, brands, and service names, then why do titles like Numb3rs, which by the way uses the Numb3rs spelling in the vast majority of sources, especially reliable sources, keep getting changed because of MOS:TM's wording? SciGal (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The principle is the same. The argument as to whether a title is technically a trademark seems like clutching at straws. In any case, note that Seven and Alien 3 are given as examples in this guideline. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

So, why is Tech N9ne allowed under MOS:TM and not Numb3rs? I don't pronounce Tech N9ne as "Tech N-nine-nah"; I say "Tech N9ne". There is not much of an argument there. SciGal (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

There was a discussion and consensus was to make an exception in that case, due to 100% of sources rendering it that way. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

From what I have read in Tech N9ne's archives, there are multiple ways to write Tech N9ne. With Numb3rs, there are only two, and one of them is the commonly recognizable name. SciGal (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop trying to make this about Numbers. The move request has just been closed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The Tech N9ne move back to that name was via Slim Virgin as "I'm closing this following a request on AN/RFC. There is consensus to move the article back to Tech N9ne, per WP:COMMONNAME. In addition, according to 2BARQUACK.COM, it is the subject's legal name." For one, this I think shows the problem that I've statement before - Common name based on RS's should come first to use a stage name over the given name, but after that point it should be MOS:TM to determine how to hand any style idiosyncrasies in the name to make it legible english. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

As for the "argument as to whether a title is technically a trademark", when a title is flagged for violation of MOS:TM, it is being treated as a technical trademark. SciGal (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, and names of TV shows, films, etc., are treated as trademarks. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I revised this, and i will say that we already have WP:OFFICIALNAMES to clarify that we don't favor official names over the common one. However, i believe MOSTM shouldn't try to add new ideas or restrictions, but just a guideline to compliment WP:OFFICIALNAMES. And i'm with Blueboar in this instance and i'm sure his analysis was based on whether common style equals standard english.Lucia Black (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:Officialnames is an essay that's designed to help editors interpret this and related policies and guidelines. Croctotheface (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

RFC to resolve conflict between MOS:TM, MOS:CT WP:TITLETM WP:RS WP:COMMONNAME

I was recently the uninvolved closer for a WP:ANRFC request regarding the television show "NUMB3RS" and if the title of our article should be "Numb3rs", "NUMB3RS", or "Numbers (TV series)". MOS is a guideline. RS is a policy. There are split decisions all over the wiki for following MOS vs RS/Primary. I have no personal horse in this race, but I think this is something that should probably be given a closer look by the wider community to see if the conflict between the two directions can be resolved. Making things slightly more complicated, in light of the Manning controversy, MOS appears to be given weight above its status as a guideline.

Question 1 Does MOS or RS take priority for determining article titles. Question 2 When evaluating sources, what weight are given to sources such as the WP:PRIMARY show/album/company itself, IMDB, TvGuide, AllMusic, Amazon etc.

A few examples of articles where the conflict has either been discussed locally, or just to show the various outcomes

• Numbers_(TV_series) (vs Numb3rs or NUMB3RS) Talk:Numbers_(TV_series)#RfC:_What_should_we_call_this_article.3F
• Kesha vs Ke$ha
• Seven (film) vs "Se7en" Talk:Seven_(film)/Archive_1#Old_requested_move
• Korn vs KoЯn
• Wham!
• Yahoo!
• A-ha
• k.d. lang (vs KD Lang)

Additional article titles added after creation of RFC
Salt-n-Pepa Salt N' Pepper Boyz II Men Boyz n the Hood Toys "R" Us Deadmau5 Tech N9ne

A few of the prior discussions I found during my closing

• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks/Archive_11#Stylization_vs._reliable_sources
• Manual_of_Style/Trademarks/Archive_11#Non-standard_titles_and_.22stylized.22_renditions

I will be placing some notifications of this RFC at various noticeboards and forums that I think may be interested. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• MOS Per Masem's excellent arguments below. wikilinks and mentions of the topic on pages other than the article itself are unable to have explanatory text. It also aids in global accessibility, and accessibility for those with disabilities. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Room for revising i don't necessarily believe the MOS is completely flawed, but there is a sense of WP:OWN to when we can make exceptions and when we can "recognize" room for exceptions. This MOS (or at least the people who claim they are following the MOS) is/are against what reliable primary sources have to say. And in the end, "WE" are defining what is acceptable, and thats just far too subjective.Lucia Black (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• MOS, obviously. If we sourced for style, we wouldn't need an MOS, and Wikipedia would be incredibly inconsistent. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• CN then MOS but on the understanding, as I've tried to outline below, that CN is determining the "content" (and thus depends on RS) while the MOS is "presentation" and applies after RS's have been used. To explain this in policy/guideline might require changes there. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
• MOS, with occasional, commonsense exceptions. We rightly rely on reliable sources for content, but style is determined in house. This is the point of a manual of style. If this results in us looking foolish, perhaps we revisit specific parts of the MOS, or make an IAR exception. But saying we have to following the stylization of reliable sources commits the specialist style fallacy, and is a fool's errand in the first place, since different sources follow their own style guides anyway. --BDD (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
• MOS and RS are not in conflict since RS doesn't talk about styling. MOS does talk about how to weigh information from sources, for example in MOS:TM; we sometimes make exceptions, like k.d. lang (K. D. Lang's registered trademark), but it's not clear why in this case and I wouldn't want to see that turn into a tide of styling per people's random vanity trademark styles and such. Dicklyon (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Article titles should use the most common name used in reliable sources, following the principle of least surprise. If no most common name can be established, or if technical limitations prevent its use, the name suggested by the manual of style should be used.  Sandstein  21:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• MOS Needs Revision for two reasons. One, titles of books, computer programs, magazines, radio programs, TV shows, movies, web pages, operas, and plays do get flagged for violation of MOS:TM. Under most style manuals (CMOS, APA, and Turbian; implied for MLA Handbook, MLA Style Manual, AP Stylebook, and MHRA), changing those names is not permissible. (An exception is made for capitalizations and ampersands). That includes the use of special characters that are reproduced using computer software. Second, if an author or a creator of a work uses a nonstandard English spelling, the Wikipedia editor is forced to prove that the nonstandard English was intentional. In some cases, that may not be possible, especially if the author or creator does not mention his or her inspiration for the title. That uncertainty may tempt some editors to conduct original research, which is not permissible under WP policy. SciGal (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, as for reliable sources, I think that user-edited sources, such as personal blogs and IMDB, should not be considered. (Caveat: Professional blogs associated with members of the scientific community and academia should be considered reliable sources.) TV Guide is frequently a good source for reviews of TV shows. Allmusic and Amazon may not be the best sources as they tend to either play music (Allmusic) or sell books and music (Amazon). SciGal (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• MOS, then COMMONNAME RS doesn't even enter into this. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• Common name The case of Star Trek Into Darkness showed that the MOS lacks consensus, is disruptive, lame and too bureaucratic. Andrew (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• UCN decides what the name is; then MOSTM decides how to style it. There is a difference between style and content; specific to this discussion, there's a difference between style and naming. WP:Commonname is designed to answer what the name is whereas MOSTM is designed to answer how to style that name. So, for instance, editors are free to argue that the dollar sign is an intractable part of Kesha's name; therefore naming guidelines call for us to use "Ke$ha". However, if the dollar sign is not an intractable part of her name (which it doesn't seem to be to me, and editors at the Kesha article seem to agree), then it's a style question, which is what this guideline is meant to address. Croctotheface (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Article titles is the policy and I believe it covers most situations, including those relating to trademarks: WP:TITLETM. WP:RS has been brought into this debate erroneously, as that is a guideline on how to identify reliable sources - there is no conflict between that guideline and any other guideline or policy regarding naming of articles: we use reliable sources to help inform us of the most appropriate title, and WP:RS helps guide us to which sources may be considerable reliable or not. Having agreed on the most appropriate name for the article using Wikipedia:Article titles, the MoS guidelines will then assist in the formatting of those names where Wikipedia:Article titles is not clear. If there is any conflict between a title guideline and Wikipedia:Article titles, then Wikipedia:Article titles takes precedence as that is the policy. If there is a specific conflict between pages, then please identify them so that, per WP:POLCON, we can attempt to resolve the matter. As regards Numb3rs, that is how the article should be presented per WP:TITLETM and WP:COMMONNAME - that is policy. Plenty of evidence was put forward during the discussion to show that Numb3rs is the common name as used by just about every reliable source on the planet. There is no policy or guideline that anywhere suggests a name should be changed. I think there has been a misunderstanding regarding the difference between "standard English text" (the number 3 is standard English text) and "graphic logos" (the number 3 is not a logo). Additionally, per WP:NATURAL, a title without disambiguation brackets is preferred over one using brackets. What should not be used is NUMB3RS, as such usage is not common, while Numb3rs is. Indeed, any use of "Numbers" is clearly wrong, as that is not the name of the show. Using a number in a name is OK, per 77 Sunset Strip, Hawaii Five-0, Blake's 7, etc. I would change it myself, but as there has been a recently closed discussion, that would be controversial, so I suggest that a discussion is held again, and is closed by someone who knows policy. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• This pretty much sums it up; that is how I would have closed the previous discussion. — Edokter (talk) — 11:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• RS then MOS... Following the reliable sources on what names to use in an article is a fundamental concept on Wikipedia. Of course, not all sources should be given equal weight when determining how they present the name. It is appropriate to give a lot more weight to how the name is presented in high-end reliable sources (Rolling Stone magazine, NYT, BBC, etc.) and very little weight (or no weight at all) to low-end sources (fan websites, facebook pages, etc). That said, the MOS preference for "standard lettering" is an appropriate tie-breaker... if the sources (especially the high-end sources) are mixed in their usage, I would have no problem with using the MOS to settle the question. HOWEVER... when the sources are not mixed... when a significant majority of sources (especially high-end sources) routinely present a name in a particular way, then that is how Wikipedia should present it. Editors should not impose our own preferences as to what is "correct" or "silly" or "pure vanity" over what the sources do. Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• MOS basically, with COMMONNAME (and/or RS) used to determine the name but not the typography or layout or color. RS is of limited use for matters of typography. COMMONNAME and RS (which will generally track each other I would think) are for determining whether an entity is called (say) "Robert's Auto Parts" or "Bob's Auto Parts". Once that's determined, MOS comes in on the matter of whether it's "Bob's Auto Parts" or "Bob*s Auto Parts" or "BoB!S aUtO pArTs!!!!!" or whatever (hint: it's "Bob's Auto Parts"). It's impossible to get down in the weeds of advertising people's typography. We can't do it anyway; we can't do colors, or script fonts, or 90-point text, or coke bottles, or whatever; we can only do a narrow range of characters. So let's not try. But even if we could, I have limited interest in the Wikipedia being jerked around by people wanting to use leet or whatever to render their product names. I'm not opposed to an occasional case-by-case exception in extraordinary cases. Herostratus (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• First RS for the content (e.g. Kesha, not Kesha Sebert) then TM for how to style it (Kesha, not Ke$ha). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• MOS. Other sites have their own manual of style, but ours trumps theirs when we're writing here. Reliable sources certainly tell us the common name, but the MOS tells us how to style it. As WP:TITLE states, we should ignore primary sources when choosing styling. However, TITLE also gives us a few exceptions to the MOS, which does set up a conflict between them. In all but the most obvious cases, we should probably defer to the MOS. I read WP:TITLETM as protection against removing the stylization from eBay and Boyz n the Hood, which are clearly established and uncontroversial. If any good-faith doubt exists, refer to the MOS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• MOS for style such as capitalization, punctuation, glyph variants or substitutions for example Я vs "R" in Toys "R" US, capitalization etc. CN should determine content not style. Agree with many of the comments above that talk about the separation of style vs. content. Consistency in style and readability are important. PaleAqua (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• WP:TITLE + MOS per SilkTork's explanation. SilkTork pretty much said everything I would have to say on the matter, so I won't bother repeating it. :) Kaldari (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment. WP:COMMONNAME does not conflict with the WP:MOS, they are complimentary, dealing with separate aspects of a title. WP:UE tells you to use English, and WP:TITLEFORMAT (both also part of WP:AT) refers you to the MOS for capitalisation and the like in most cases, as it should. We shouldn't be referring to sources for aspects of style - if we did this, we may as well disregard the whole WP:MOS. It defeats the point. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, the MOS:TM guideline directly conflicts with the WP:TITLE policy. In such cases, policy trumpt guideline. However most MOS guidelines lack information on how to handle article titles. What is important to note is that titles of TV series should not primarely be viewed as a trademark, but as a tilte of an artistic work. In that field, there is a tendency to use the stylized title. — Edokter (talk) — 16:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Can you point out where you think the conflict is? For most of the WP:TITLEFORMAT section, it actually directs you to the MOS on which format to use for article titles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. This is pulled directly from WP:TITLE (WP:TITLETM section). — Edokter (talk) — 17:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Depending on how this goes we may need to play with that phrase since that I think is the problematic place, particularly that while TITLE is policy, it only applies to titling pages and doesn't reflect all prose like MOS:TM is meant to. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
    • My point earlier on this page and below is that COMMONNAME (TITLE) and MOS:TM have no conflict if you consider them the counterparts of content and presentation, respectively. Using RS's to determine the right name (ignoning the vaniety aspect of its spelling) is step one, determining how to present vanity spelling for maximum reability is the second step. That's the problem I see in many of these discussions is that too many of them merge the concepts of CN and MOS:TM and leads to endless debate. There is a clear line between these two that can be put down and remove any issues of which trumps which, as the two deal with very different things. But, to note, this requires you to consider that in choosing the commonname name, any vanity-type spellings are grouped into the same "option" compared to stage-vs-full name, or US vs UK spelling, or other choices that come up at CN debates. This is, I will admit, not as clear a point in the policy/guideline and may be considered somewhat novel, but it does provide a clear solution to simplify all naming discussions that involve vanity spellings. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

As I've tried to explain above, this MOS (like all MOS) is aimed to make the text of vanity spells of trademarked names readable for the largest possible audience of English readers. Where RS's come in is determining the COMMONNAME (in examples above, this is using the name Kesha/Ke$ha over her given name). The other thing to remember here is that COMMONNAME/RS only apply to the titling of the page about that topic, while MOS:TM applies to all instances of that name across prose of Wikipedia. So in process, first RS's should be used to chose the best common name, but once a common name is selected, then the conditions of MOS:TM should be applied to remove any vanity characters that get in the way of making the term readable in the way (or a way) the term will be pronounced, as to aid all readers and those with screen readers. Any alternate ways that the name is presented can be easily outlined in the first sentence of the lead. As long as it is understood that COMMONNAME selection is to determine which name to use ignoring the notion of vanity spellings, and MOS:TM details how to objectively normalize these to maximize readability, then all the cases given fall out without problem. The situation only because aggravated when people that have a vested interest in the topic want to see it in the "vanity" form without understanding that people on the other side of the globe may have no idea how to read that vanity spelling. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

My personal feeling is much in line with yours. Very good distinction between the article title and how the mark is used elsewhere in wiki. How about the punctuation? It probably won't confuse human readers, but certainly could make screen readers puke. Due to some confusion at ANRFC there was potentially another closer Edokter who said he would have come to the opposite conclusion to myself, since a preponderance of RS brought up as part of the initial RFC (Amazon, Imdb, TvGuide, etc) use the Numb3rs format. (Although in my personal searching I did find many others using standard spelling. [5] [6] [7] Gaijin42 (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Something like Yahoo! or Wham!, where it is being used as one would normally expect, no issues; if it's used as like in "P!nk" (instead of Pink (singer), that's a problem. The thing to keep in mind in relationship to MOS and RSs is that thoughout all parts of our MOS (not just this one but anywhere in MOS:) we commonly go against aspects of reliable sources to fit our needs to be a global English encyclopedia, which is a far different audience than what most RS's aim for (which is, primarily, Western audiences). --MASEM (t) 16:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree simply because thats impossible. WP:MOSTM/WP:COMMONNAME/WP:OFFICIALNAME can't possibly cater everyone, and theres going to be areas where we can't do a thing about it. Example if one uses hacker caps such as "GhOsT" instead of "Ghost". even with audio, the difference wont help.

See, the problem with masem's "we can just add a redirect, we can just clarify on the first sentence" defense is that it goes both ways. We can easily say the same thing the other way around.

I'm not saying this MOSTM is useless, but it attempts to trump everything else. This MOS are not based on the principles of the other policies. And i believe we have to make room for the policies to override the MOS when possible.

If primary sources use "Numb3rs" consistently (as in every sentence the name is mentioned) instead of just introducing the stylized name and then using the standard pronunciation, then that would mean that the sources consider Numb3rs as the standard spelling, and not just a mock-up official name. Here's an example: Tails Character originally was Miles "Tails" Prower because the official trademark was Miles "Tails" Prower, but he was more commonly referred to as "Tails" consistently in the sources despite introducing him as 'Miles "Tails" Prower". Here the common name trumps the trademark.

right now, MOSTM trumps other policies and claims its what wikipedia wants, but its the only MOS out there that uses this standard (and that's probably because there can't be any other standard). I believe MOSTM should know its place, that its just an MOS.

Keep in mind, Wikipedia is a reflection of the world (in a sense, dont quote me on this to prove a point). So we bring in all the reliable sources, and they are the ones that help build the article. but the problem is when one MOS tries to make us ignore what the sources are saying. Which is why i believe we are "lying" to the readers when we choose a vague name over what is universally known.Lucia Black (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you miss the point Lucia. 'Miles "Tails" Prower' vs "Tails" is a WP:COMMONNAME/WP:OFFICIALNAME issue, and has absolutely nothing to do with the WP:MOS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"See, the problem with masem's "we can just add a redirect, we can just clarify on the first sentence" defense is that it goes both ways. We can easily say the same thing the other way around." No we can't. On the article, yes, we can have the first line to say "Numb3rs (pronounced "Numbers") is a television show..." and that would seem to clear it up, but if I have to reference the name of the show on any other page of WP, the user is not going to have that information. That's why when it comes to vanity spellings, we should be completely avoiding them except to explain they exist on the topic's page, as well as to assist in any redirects. We're maximizing readability while staying true to the facts of the sources. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: ...but if I have to reference the name of the show on any other page of WP, the user is not going to have that information. - Why not ... It would be quite simple to add the parenthetical explanation about pronunciation to any article that mentions the TV show... For example, the bio article about David Krumholtz (one of the stars), could easily say: From 2005 to 2010, Krumholtz stared in the TV show Numb3rs (pronounced "Numbers"). I don't think it is necessary to do this... but we certainly could do it. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be necessary (to maximize readability including for screenreaders), and that would be incredibly unwieldy in terms of writing tight prose. Arguably one could do "...stared in the TV show [[Numb3rs|Numbers]]..." as well, which to the reader is less a problem, but still is a pain to keep enforced for writers. The MOS approach also helps there because it's easy to know how to "spell" the term to be linked without too much effort since we're normalizing to English, not to what RS's say and what a consensus might have determined. --MASEM (t) 16:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

No we're not if we choose one over what the world considers to be universal. We're trying to apply "common sense" in an area that is heavily based on sources. And your explanation of how the user isn't going to have that information isn't helping your case at all, and makes little sense. Also, i understand we should avoid them but only where its possible, not in a such a way where we become ignorant.Lucia Black (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:RS fits into this discussion. Obviously, we can't use something like K3sha or kOrN as a title, because these titles are not used by any sources at all. However, there is no doubt that the titles at issue appear in at least some sources that would be considered reliable (i.e., reliable enough that we could cite them in an article as teh source for the proposition that this is a name of the entity in question). bd2412 T 17:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The argument in the Numb3rs case in particular was that that was the spelling the sources used, and moving away from that spelling was WP:OR etc. In that particular case, I think there are alternate (more?) reliable sources that we can go to, as IMDB, Amazon etc are not considered reliable anywhere else but that is how that policy is involved. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing comes into play from WP:TITLE/WP:COMMONNAME. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

But if you think about it, If MOSTM just tries to trump them, when it comes to naming conventions, why even have them? Keep in mind, this MOS only affects the primary topic, it doesn't affect episode titles in a list of episodes, track list titles of an album, etc.

but even so, there are two distinct principles. the ones who want to maximize reading, and those who are worried about using the "least" known name will imply that it is. Thats the problem with not associating WP:COMMONNAME/WP:TITLE with WP:MOSTM. You dont associate it with them you have no problem about any implications this MOS does, but if you do, its clear as day.Lucia Black (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This MOS effects every use of the term in mainspace, not just in titling, though I think your point is that things like episode names and song titles are not trademark terms (which is correct, but also a point of issue if TM should go beyond just trademark/brand/service names.) --MASEM (t) 17:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Arguably, MOS should apply even more strongly when its not an actual trademark, since the actual trademark is legally saying there is an official name. If we are overriding that, we should certainly override style when its 'just the style. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

i'm still leaning toward reworking the MOS. try too hard to be absolute isn't going anywhere, and i feel theres another side to this that some of you regulars haven't been saying.Lucia Black (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42, other documents besides a trademark registration can legally indicate an official name. For example, a copyright registration, like this one and this one. bd2412 T 18:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No argument there. My point was that this conflict seems to also exist into areas that are pure style, and not subject to any TM/copyright etc, but the way the MOS is worded, the MOS seems to apply only to things that do have "official" stamps, but not those that don't. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The MOS:TM, by its terms, only applies to trademarks, and not to other things that have "official" stamps. Of course, general provisions of the MOS apply generally. bd2412 T 18:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

When I came here, I thought that MOS:TM was for trademarks only; that is the way that the guideline reads. How titles could be even considered trademarks is beyond me. SciGal (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

As for the Numb3rs/Numbers debate, this may be of interest. SciGal (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

(interposed comment) Oh! I get it now. I was pronouncing it "num-three-ers" to myself. So if I was wrong about that, what about someone from Chad? Hmmmm... Herostratus (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Titles used in trade are trademarks, whether registered or not. In the case of "NUMB3ERS", it is a registered trademark of Paramount Pictures Corporation, since first use in trade in 2005. The question of how we should style it is dealt with by MOS:TM. We don't set it in all caps. We look at how others do it, and pick the one that's most like normal English. If we decided to use "Numbers" it's because other reliable sources do so. No mystery there. Dicklyon (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

SciGal, Here's the thing with the Numbers/Numb3rs/NUMB3RS question. First off, there are indeed sources that use "Numbers." A quick search found me theNew York Times and TV Guide. Second, it seems like you're frustrated that the question, when asked on the article talk page, wasn't answered the way you wanted it answered. Now, you seem to want to come here and change guidelines and policies so that other editors will feel compelled to switch over to your position. Generally, that's not a successful way to go. Already, editors could've chosen to ignore this guideline if they wanted. And, perhaps appropriately, even if you succeed in changing the guideline to say whatever you want it to, editors could then choose to ignore that under IAR. Im my experience, Wikipedia generally standardizes weird styles much less than high-level sources do, at least based on my experience. My rule of thumb is to trust that the editors who made those decisions had good reasons, or at least quasi-reasonable ones, and not to get in their face about it. It's made my editing experience here much more pleasant. Croctotheface (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

To comment on SciGal's !vote above, there is no requirement that our MOS must follow anything printed in other MOSes; we are completely free to manufacture our own MOS to suit our needs. Obviously it makes no sense for us to go completely off kilt with our MOS from others, but because we serve a vaster audience than any of those, we are free to adapt our MOS to meet the global readership, compared to MOS developed for specific readership segments. --MASEM (t) 01:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

And this is where i believe we're using a sense of original research. we the editors are making bigger claims than what Wikipedia itself is saying. we have rules, but only rules to make articles more efficient, this MOS is far different, and it claims to make bigger things. and thats why people are voting on the guideline over the policy. which doesn't make sense.

And yes, reliable sources play the outcome of what title we use per WP:COMMONNAME, whatever name is more well known allows us to use it. So if sources use "Ghost" more than "gHoSt" it will allow us to determine the right one. To me, this MOS is trying to override that process, when reliable third-party sources define the standard english, and CHOOSE to ignore them.

Again, ignoring that WP:COMMONNAME/WP:TITLE are all part of naming conventions and so does this MOS. Even if we had room to say "the 3 in Numb3rs is a glorified "e". That still doesn't change the fact that sources consider it as a integral part of the title. Just because Deadmau5 is pronounced "Dead-mouse" and obviously the 5 is a glorified "s". it doesn't change the fact that sources provide what they consider standard english.

the MOS at the moment considers "Deadmau5" and "deadmaus" the same title, and the same with "Numb3rs" and "Numbers". and thats simply not the case. both pronounced the same, but one obliviously plays more recognition to another. Especially with Nubmers when it creates natural disambiguation. And trust me, the MOS doesn't "maximize" readers. Even if one were to source that some aspects of a title are glorified letters, its really not the point of it.

How convenient that we can find sources to excuse why we don't use these type of spelling, but when its the other way around, its ignored. i'll say it again, this MOS needs revision. and although i'm the minority at the moment, thats simply because i'm discussing it for now. throughout the past, this has been an issue.Lucia Black (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Recognition should be second to readability, given the ability for redirects and lead sentences to clarify recognition quickly. And yes MOSes are supposed to maximize readibility by adhering to a standard convention to the work to avoid tricking the reader, that's the whole point of a MOS for any publication. --MASEM (t) 07:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

but look at the rules that are based off of "readability"? MOSes shouldn't override policy. and this is what it does, no matter how many times you say it does, you will not convince me of this.

And the only one tricking the reader, is this MOS.Lucia Black (talk) 07:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

What provisions of policy are you thinking the MOS conflicts with? Dicklyon (talk) 08:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Dicklyon, Crototheface, and Masem, I think that you have missed one very important fact: the creators of the show, Cheryl Heuton and Nick Falacci titled it Numb3rs, not the network. I also think that you are not considering that the authors you cite as proof that Numbers is the correct name for the series either can make a spelling mistake, can be in a rhythm that they do not think about what they are typing, or can hate the title of the show and use the Numbers spelling. In TV Guide's case, the vast majority of articles which use the Numbers spelling could be linked to three authors. In the New York Times case, that is a rare spelling. That is why, since December 31, 2004 (the date the article was created), editors chose to ignore MOS:TM. (Actually, MOS:TM at that time covered only trademarks and not titles of works.)

Moreover, I think that the Numb3rs/Numbers debate has boiled down to a matter of "Numb3rs is the name of the series since it was a concept that the creators pitched to the network. The vast majority of reliable sources use it, and it should be used here. As for the few that use a more standard spelling, we accept that they could have made a good faith error." versus "Numb3rs is a "silly" "vanity spelling" that the network designed "to make the title look cool" and to promote the show. Since the network did not make the change during the production process, we need to change it ourselves so that it does not look so weird". This does two things. One, it ignores the fact that the creators of the series did name the show Numb3rs. Second, an inaccurate name does not benefit the readers who would like to see accurate information about the series and can lead them to question Wikipedia's accuracy on other topics. SciGal (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Given that at some point (first sentence of a proper lead paragraph) we are going to call it by the name the creators wanted to use ("Numbers, stylized as NUMB3RS...") we are not trivializing their choice; in fact, if this particular styling is one that can be sourced to say why it was picked (if I remember from above, they wanted to use l33t speak for the name), that can be brought up again in the show's development section. But there's no requirement that if a show or anyone else opts for a vanity spelling that we have to follow it as long as we're clear that the vanity spelling exists. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between Numbers stylized as "Numb3rs", and Numb3rs (pronounced as "Numbers") and thats how we present what title is it most recognized for. Whats being trivialized isn't their choice, its what the sources have confirmed to being the more common and well-accepted name. And its Original research to claim that sources don't cater to the average reader. And its simply impossible for Wikipedia to cater to the below-average, and it shouldn't.

This is a big deal, this is why WP:COMMONNAME takes its place.. Although a stylistic choice, stating "stlized as" means that the "proper" name is "Numbers" not "Numb3rs". which again, is up to debate right now.

Deadmau5 was an easy choice, but we had to jump hoops with you, just to let it slide.Lucia Black (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

We're a global work, readability needs to trump recognizability to serve that goal. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

To SilkTork's !vote no one has said numbers in titles are bad: the three you give - 77 Sunset Strip, Hawaii Five-0, Blake's 7 - are completely in line. The key is that in those titles, the numbers are pronounced as given: it is "seventy seven sunset strip", "hawaii five oh" and "blakes seven", so that's fine. However "Numb3rs" is not pronounced "numb three rs", as that vanity spelling would imply, and that's a point of issue for people who may be familiar with English but not Western contemporary shows. Using vanity spellings harms readership's understanding if they are initially unfamiliar with the term of work. MOS:TM is clearly more focused on these issues than just the aspect of using numbers in a title. Its about using characters in the English alphabet in a manner completely unexpected from their normal English use (3 for e, ! for i, $ for s, etc.) that is not going to be obvious for all English readers --MASEM (t) 15:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

thats not true. its easy to adapt on the first sentence once clarified.Lucia Black (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

That only can be done on the one article about the work; it fails for any other article where that name may likely come up; this is why it is a global issue about readability and not just how it looks on one page. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

No. its done because the name Deadmau5 was used consistently. In any other work that met the exact same situation should be acceptable. I dont believe exceptiosn without reason should be used solely for one series. if it is likely to occur again then we must allow it. Numb3rs also fits in well. its not like the sources introduce the tv series as "numb3rs" but then choose to use "Numbers" throughout the source, unlike "Ke$ha" where its more of a hassle to identify Kesha with a $ instead of an s. Numb3rs is accepted as standard english by the sources.Lucia Black (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

"Deadmau5" was fine because as you argued there are enough sources that also name him "dead mau five", in addition to "dead mouse". --MASEM (t) 16:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

What about Nothing Compares 2 U (which, as noted before, is not a trademark)? Is it not arbitrary to permit the number substitution in that case, and deny it in others? What about Gr8 Designs for Gr8 Girls? Lordz of Brooklyn, misspelling a common word with a "z", and Encyclopædia Britannica with it's title dipthong? bd2412 T 17:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The dipthong is fine because that's actually a character from the original langauge just as we would not omit non-English accents like Ç or ė. (We would of course have the "de-accented" version as redirects). As for those other cases, while seeming out of place, phonetic they equate to how you would normally pronounce those names, as to come to a basic rule of thumb. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

BUt guess who was the only one who opposed before hand? The idea of the name being interchangeable to dead-mau-five and dead-mouse was rather slim, but evident enough for you to drop it. but we still had a strong consensus for it to not even bother, but we did it for the sake of moving on. so please keep that in mind whenever we refer to deadmau5. either way, the majority of the reasoning was because it was so universally accepted as deadmau5 even though officially pronounced dead-mouse. And look at the article, it does not state that "deadmau5" can also be pronounced as "dead-mau-5" just because it was cited to be mispronounced. and thats another key detail, that even if mispronounced, its still recognizable. and this could apply to Nub3rs, although never officially revealed to be mispronounced as Numb-three-ers (which if you grew up with mispronouncing names, its not that hard to say), it falls in the exact same category. For the record, we didn't really even use a source to verify through reliable sources that it could be pronounced that way, but it has been pronounced that way in the past.

I'm not saying the MOS should be abolished, but the MOS tends to be "absolute" when theres clear ammount of leeway, just like blueboar has stated.Lucia Black (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment on all caps: I suspect there may be some merit in making a clearer distinction between all caps as a stylisation, and other embellishments such as digits instead of letters (Numb3rs), unusual punctuation (P!nk), or unusual capitalisation. All caps is quite a common typographic style, for example on signs, in newspaper headlines, and such capitalisation is not considered "stylisation". At what point do we decide that all caps is a "stylisation" that it is appropriate to explicitly note in the article (eg "Pepsi (...formerly stylised in uppercase as PEPSI)"). Does the name need to be included in a logo (like Pepsi's), or in a TV title card (Numbers), or written with a distinctive non-standard manner, as with last two letters in the band KISS? Some companies such as Sony, have their name in upper case in their logo, but we don't mention stylisation on that article. Should we? What about Dell, whose logo is upper case and has a distinctively rotated E, or Samsung with no horizontal bar in the A? I suspect that in the majority of cases where all caps is used in stylisation of a name that is is not a reason to use all caps in an article, except that it may be appropriate to mention that stylisation (Use–mention distinction). In short - I can't see that NUMB3RS would ever be acceptable as an article title or for general usage in articles.Mitch Ames (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Allc aps is a trivial matter, it doesn't really change the scheme of the title. there is no other "Pepsi" for us to care about whether "PEPSI" is a better choice, same with all the other examples you've given, but considering that all caps is more of a way to capture the readers eye, more than a trademark to represent the subject, people will use all-caps in every day life, not just in titles or trademarks. so its not something that just influences trademark. However, if it is an acronym such as KISS and sources universally accept it, than it can be in all-caps. But thats only if theres enough reason to use it AND the sources universally accept it.

so even though KISS is acceptable because its an acronym for "Knights in Satan's Service" sources don't accept it. which is why i believe this MOS needs to be refined.Lucia Black (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

KISS is a stylisation in their logo, not an acronym, according to the article. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

last time i saw the article, it had it. its been awhile but regardless, there are times when an acronym can be overlooked despite MOSTM allowing it and thats because sources choose the common name. and here, we may think "Numb3rs" and "NUmbers" are the same thing, but keep in mind, that only works when you're using the human mind (sort of speak), think tech wise and how much Wikipedia does to not have original thought and it would "need" to associate them as two different titles, not one that is stylized as the other.Lucia Black (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

We're not saying its the same thing. To the lowest-common denominator reader - the one that may have enough English to use Wikipedia (at ~high school level, roughly) and without knowledge of pop culture - they are two different things; one is clearly an English world, one is a weird series of characters. They will have no problem understanding the word "Numbers" in any context without help, while "Numb3rs" will confuse them. Hence the reason to avoid. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

and thats where things get subjective, that's how WE interpret the titles not how. Numb3rs will not confuse them.Lucia Black (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not a subjective statement. "Numb3rs" will be confusing to those with some but not complete knowledge of English and with lack of Western culture, as well as to screen reader software. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Not entirely, the fact that there already is a logo present in the article, already helps. Asking why 3 replaces E, wouldn't be confusing even for those who aren't familiar with english.Lucia Black (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

But we're talking across all WP article space, not just the article about the show. That logo won't be there on the actors' pages, etc. Clarity in context, assuming there's no other context for the term at all, needs to be assured for readability. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

THe logo helps in showing that "Numb3rs is the actual name of the media" and this is common for other works. And considering sources prefer "Numb3rs" as the standard english, so keep in mind that this sis something still available for a large portion of the titles. And keep in mind, although confirmed Numb3rs to use a vriant of "l33t", not all l33t/leet is accepted in english, and the fact that it is accepted in sources for Numb3rs, shows alot.Lucia Black (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You didn't read what I said. What about on pages like Rob Morrow where (like it is presently) "Numb3rs" is used instead of "Numbers". You can't put the logo on that page, so there's no context to understand what "Numb3rs" is supposed to be read or the like. That will confuse our lowest-common denominator reader, and that's why MOS:TM, which applies globally, tells us to avoid. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

But how bad is it? i get that we need to do that when the line between both names are blurred. but not when one is accepted universally, and thats something this MOS has to take account of. Because if its accepted universally with that title, even those who aren't new to it will eventually get confused the second time around when they know more of that particular media or person OUTSIDE of wikipedia.

Thats something we have to consider. This is why controversy rises. this is for the reason why Deadmau5 was an issue, and as much as you like yuo claim you were the consensus changing vote, it wasn't, just the fastest way to get it done.Lucia Black (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Amazon, IMDB etc are not "sources". Actual high quality sources use "Numbers". [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Gaijin42 (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so now that you're going for that route argument, are you saying that high quality sources ACTUALLY Matters? or are you trying to end the discussion? we do have to stay consistent. if you want to use sources as much as i do, stay accountable for the outcome when it does go against the MOS.Lucia Black (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No, Im still saying we should follow MOS. Probably for the same reasons the high quality sources did. But I am saying that the counter argument is based on a false assumption and therefore should be assessed in that light. (in the case of numbers at least).

Funny how you didn't bring up Deadmau5 sources. and again, this is still an issue. So, again i say, stay consistent, and stay firm to your own reasoning, don't play the other way around, because you can only be on one side, and for me my side is to modify the MOS. its still useful, but not completely.Lucia Black (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Deadmau5 fits the pattern if you talk about pronunciation, going on the good faith statement that you said that people call the artist, verbally "dead mau five" at times (in addition to the more common "dead mouse"). If that is not true, then we have to fix deadmau5 to go to deadmaus to be correct. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It appears that people that pronounce the "five" are generally considered idiots and called out for it widely. But if the guy pronounced it that way himself in a verifiable reliable source, it can probably sneak by on a technicality. (but we should then be saying in the article that he pronounces it that way. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)so what i mentioned a few months ago suddenly matters? look...i'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, but there is a clear sign of how advantageous some of you get when it comes to the usage of the MOS. there is clear room for modification, and Deadmau5 (dead-mau-5) is never officially confirmed by the people, but its easy enough to refer to him as Deadmau5 which is what i argued in the past, if we're going to allow numbers in it should be where its in a specific place in a title that allows assumption of a name. For example if a series was called "3lite" one can easily assume "three-lite" but if it means "Elite" thats another thing. Which deadmau5 i at first referred to him as Dead-mau-5 as i'm sure many have, but certain titles allow that. whats stopping other series from adopting similar typography and fans accidentally refer it to that. Keep in mind Deadmau5 still isn't reliably confirmed to have people refer to him as that, but the assumption that its the name he intended is there.

You know who you're really calling an idiot Gaijin? the people who are generally for the MOS as they want this for those who might get confused on how "Numb3rs" might be pronounced "Numbers". Deadmau5 being pronounced dead mau five isn't a stretch, but is it still acceptable?stay consistent and be careful with what you are saying because it will go back to haunt you. and yes, i'll be the one to bring it up, like i did just now. So don't call people idiots to those who refer to him as deadmau5.

no more "on the fence", whatever reasoning you use, be sure that it helps your case. no more STONEWALLingLucia Black (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)