Jump to content

Talk:Sign o' the Times

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 63.142.146.194 (talk) at 04:45, 28 April 2016 (the album cover). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Find sources notice

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Sign o' the Times (album)Sign "O" the Times (album) – The argument for moving this to the current title doesn't seem to make any sense. This album is almost always referred to with quotes on both sides and a capital "O". Wikipedia guidelines, therefore, indicate this should be at Sign "O" the Times (album). Rhindle The Red (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • SPIN uses the current orthography, with a lowercase 'o' and a single apostrophe. Rolling Stone uses a lowercase 'o' but with the quotation marks. But the majority of sources cited in the article appear to use the proposed orthography (often with single-quotation marks instead of double, but they're equivalent from our perspective). I support the move absent evidence to the contrary. Powers T 15:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because the official orthography is Sign “☮” the Times and a capital O is the closest symbol to the peace sign that can be used in a title. Also, double rather than single quotes are used. — O'Dea (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above.--GoPTCN 10:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Discogs uses same. Quotes also on album sleeve, albeit an O instead of a peace sign. Dan56 (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move back

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]



– These articles were moved with little discussion, against the usual style and naming guidelines, and against the prevailing typography in sources, too. Here the "o'" is an abbreviation of "of" and should be treated as such, as in [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Considering the number of possibilities of case, single-v-double, one-v-two quotes, the fact that about half of all books use the way that makes sense with respect to the meaning and normal title orthography is pretty clear evidence that it is not just acceptable, but widely preferred; the fact the WP has guidelines like MOS:CT and MOS:TM that suggest an English-like rendering with normal case makes it clear what WP prefers. Dicklyon (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen that dab page "A Sign of the Times a 1966 single by Petula Clark" has Sign of the Times no "A" on the cover artwork. Per Routledge and Billboard sources moved to Sign of the Times (Petula Clark song) and amended dab page. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I forgot to look into the ambiguity; besides the Prince album, song, and film, there are all those others without the contraction. Should we modify the RM, wait till this settles, or what? Dicklyon (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's your RM, if you want to offer a second choice up to you. I support anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's save the ambiguity question for another day, and just fix the orthography in this one. Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.