Jump to content

Talk:Jon Anderson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 15:17, 17 June 2024 (Archiving 16 discussion(s) to Talk:Jon Anderson/Archive 1) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

AndersonPonty Band or Anderson Ponty Band

Jon Anderson used to be in a collaboration with Jean-Luc Ponty called the Anderson Ponty Band... or is it the AndersonPonty Band? I prefer the latter, Shubopshadangalang prefers the former. There are clearly sources using both. Primary sources show the band did stylise the name without a space and some secondary sources follow that. Other secondary sources do not. We could start counting sources either way if that's useful. I got 14k for a space versus 9k for no space on Google hits. I got 31 for a space versus 6 for no space on Google News hits.

I would suggest that the common Wikipedia approach is not to use stylised names. So, we call Kesha "Kesha", not "Ke$ha". We call Prince "Prince", not that squiggle, or The Artist Formerly Known as Prince (or TAFKAP) or The Artist. We note such alternates, but don't use them. We call EE Cummings "Cummings", not "cummings" or "e e cummings". Yes often stylise themselves "YES" and some secondary sources use that, but we call them "Yes".

So, on grounds of what is used most commonly and Wikipedia approach to whacky punctuation, I suggest we stick with Anderson Ponty Band, with a space. Bondegezou (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's a matter of preference, at least not my preference. The sources that use "AndersonPonty" include their official Facebook page, as well as Spotify, Billboard, OfficialCharts, Allmusic.com, etc., which indicate there was a specific, concerted effort on the part of the band/label/management/distributor to have it listed that way. Sure, it's possible that other sources refer to them differently (I'm not sure which other sources we're talking about, so I dare not guess as to the reason for the inconsistency), but to me that seems like those would be of lesser importance in this case. And MOS:TMRULES, as you referred to within edits is pretty clear on the issue of "CamelCase" (e.g. PlayStation), stating that it's a judgment call in some cases, but that "where it reflects general usage" should be preferred, which I think is what we're talking about here. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 22:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you are looking at the wrong sources. It doesn't matter if there was a specific, concerted effort on the part of the band/label/management/distributor to have it listed that way. There was a specific, concerted effort to use "Ke$ha". Wikipedia privileges WP:SECONDARY sources over WP:PRIMARY sources like Facebook, Spotify, Amazon etc. Wikipedia seeks to be an encyclopaedia and, in doing so, to write about subjects as an encyclopaedia would. As such, we look to how the best sources write about a topic, i.e. we want to look at how books and magazine articles write about the APB and follow their style, rather than relying on directory listings like the charts.
I gave Google hits before, and these favour "Anderson Ponty" over "AndersonPonty". We can look at specific articles:
  • Billboard, in an article rather than a chart listing, uses "Anderson Ponty Band", although an earlier article used "AndersonPonty"
  • NPR uses "Anderson Ponty Band"
  • Music Radar uses "Anderson Ponty Band"
  • The Montrealer uses "Anderson Ponty Band"
  • Long Island Weekly uses "Anderson Ponty Band"
  • Time and a Word: The Yes Story by Martin Popoff uses "Anderson Ponty Band"
  • L'age d'or du rock progressif anglais 1965 - 1979 Tome 1 by Didier Gonzalez uses "Anderson-Ponty Band", just to add to the mix
  • Prog magazine uses "Anderson Ponty Band", although an earlier article from Classic Rock (same publisher) used "AndersonPonty"
  • Aspen Public Radio uses "Anderson Ponty Band"
  • Rockshot Mag uses "Anderson Ponty Band"
  • Ramzine uses "Anderson Ponty Band"
  • Noise 11 uses "Anderson Ponty Band"
  • Biff Bam Pop uses "Anderson Ponty Band"
When people write about the APB, they overwhelmingly use "Anderson Ponty", particularly more recently. So, so should we. Bondegezou (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure we're talking about the same thing. Obviously I know how Wikipedia works, Henri (and for the record I don't appreciate the condescending tone here), but this is a matter of being correct as compared to following common, incorrect usage. Just like you get to dictate the correct spelling or pronunciation of your name, no matter how common it's incorrectly used by others, a trademark owner gets to decide the correct usage of their trademark. Do a lot of people use it wrong? Good to know, and maybe that's worth noting secondarily. But it shouldn't overrule using the correct terminology as defined by those who… defined it. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 14:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if my tone came across as condescending.
Ownership of a trademark does not mean you get to dictate how other people style your name. Wikipedia follows common usage, not the correct terminology as defined by those who… defined it. To quote WP:COMMONNAME (which is talking about a slightly different context of the article name, but the principle carries over), Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). Bondegezou (talk) 09:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musicians#How_do_we_style_a_name?_Anderson_Ponty_Band_or_AndersonPonty_Band to bring in some more opinions. Bondegezou (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the theory behind what you're saying for most things, but while the correct usage of language in general is more nebulously defined by common usage, a brand name or trademark isn't defined by the masses, but by its owner(s). No matter how many times someone calls them "Flock of Seagulls," the correct band name is A Flock of Seagulls, and the Wikipedia page for that band reflects that. No matter how many times they're referred to as "The Counting Crows," that's not what the band Counting Crows is correctly called, and the Wikipedia article appropriately treats those incorrect usages as irrelevant. There are plenty of other examples I'm sure, but it's also worth noting that this isn't simply about style, there's also a space here, which affects the actual spelling. A specific example of a camel case band name is BarlowGirl (not "Barlow Girl," despite mistaken mentions of them in the press with that variation), and I'm sure there are countless others. My point is that we can choose whether to be correct, or to yield to incorrect usage. I have no interest in the latter, as that would be, well… incorrect. My suggestion would be to call them "AndersonPonty Band" and, if necessary, include a mention that it's "sometimes styled 'Anderson Ponty Band.'" —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 17:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, re: this supposition stated above: "Ownership of a trademark does not mean you get to dictate how other people style your name": The trademark owners of YouTube (not You Tube), iPod (not I-pod), eBay (not e-bAy), PlayStation (not PLAY_station), and PowerPoint (not PowerPoint) would beg to differ, and I wouldn't put it past time-traveling attorneys to pop up out of nowhere if we start misspelling CompuServe, BellSouth, or PageMaker. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's exactly what ownership of a trademark means you get to do… at least inasmuch as they get to define what spelling and styling is considered correct, and what is not. And, again, being correct is what we should concern ourselves with primarily here. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 23:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, you are entirely wrong in your understanding of what power ownership of a trademark bestows. Ownership of a trademark does not mean you get to tell other people how to write your name. You can write "You Tube", or "youtube" or "u tube" or whatever you want with zero fear of a YouTube lawyer contacting you. Here's an essay on what a trademark gets you.
Wikipedia writes "YouTube" because that is the most common usage. I have given you what the Wikipedia approach is: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name [...] it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used. Bondegezou (talk) 07:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I quote MOS:TM: When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should examine styles already in use by independent reliable sources. From among those, choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner. Bondegezou (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at how Wikipedia treats some other artists and acts:

Artists

In all of the policies quoted above, I see that the recommendation is for us to "choose" and make a "judgement call" with numerous factors in mind, and in this case I stand by my argument above that we should favor what is correct, rather than what is incorrect, and the idea that we should "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English" hasn't been favored toward breaking apart compound camel case brand names in many prominent cases (YouTube, PlayStation, etc. as noted above). Both usages ["AndersonPonty" and "Anderson Ponty"] have reliable sources, which of course is necessary for inclusion, but it shouldn't be a matter of counting the number of those sources seeing which version "wins." Whether the incorrect usage slightly outnumbers the examples you've found of the correct usage, I don't see why that factors more highly in the judgment call the policy defines that we need to make here, any more than one should give false equivalence to an opposing argument about whether the earth is round. This [the general principle at play here, AndersonPonty Band aside] is a hill I'm prepared to die on, as they say, or to perhaps use a better metaphor, I'm not going to follow the lemmings off the cliff, just because there are more of them. That is to say, if consensus dictates this goes the other way, then so be it, but I stand by my arguments. I wish you well, and appreciate the seriousness and thoroughness with which you approach this topic as always.
One parting thought: The difference between "Anderson Ponty Band" and "AndersonPonty Band" affects alphabetization, so it's a matter of spelling, not simply of style, unlike most of the examples you cited above. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 15:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should use the plain-English "Anderson Ponty Band", because usage is sources is mixed, and WP does not adopt an unusual stylization unless usage of it in RS is overwhelming.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2018 plans

Article said ”Anderson plans to release the album in three parts, with a tour currently following the first part, which he wants to document on film.<ref name="azcentral" /><ref name="ultimateclassicrock.com Jon Anderson Finishing Album">{{cite web |url=http://ultimateclassicrock.com/jon-anderson-solo-album-2018/ |title=Jon Anderson Finishing Album He Started 27 Years Ago (by Martin Kielty) |date= January 2018 |website=Ultimateclassicrock.com |access-date= 29 August 2018}}</ref>”. These plans have presumably been met, or not met, by now. I’ve moved the comment here so that hopefully someone who knows the topic can bring it up to date as it doesn’t make much sense in the article in its current form.--Northernhenge (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jon_Anderson&oldid=1229574601"