Talk:Big Time Rush (group): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 97: Line 97:
::::::: So the answer is that [[MOS:HEAD]] does not, in fact, say to capitalize a dependent clause following a colon. As I thought. [[User:Joefromrandb|Joefromrandb]] ([[User talk:Joefromrandb|talk]]) 00:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::: So the answer is that [[MOS:HEAD]] does not, in fact, say to capitalize a dependent clause following a colon. As I thought. [[User:Joefromrandb|Joefromrandb]] ([[User talk:Joefromrandb|talk]]) 00:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::::: Who cares?! Article content is determined by editor consensus, and the rest of all agree that the current style is correct for headers. Because it's common sense. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/IJBall|contribs]] • [[User talk:IJBall|talk]])</small> 00:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::::: Who cares?! Article content is determined by editor consensus, and the rest of all agree that the current style is correct for headers. Because it's common sense. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/IJBall|contribs]] • [[User talk:IJBall|talk]])</small> 00:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::::: Bzzzzzt, error. See [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]], and who the hell is "the rest of us", anyway? [[User:Joefromrandb|Joefromrandb]] ([[User talk:Joefromrandb|talk]]) 06:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::::: Capitalization after also only matters if the colon follows an independent clause which a date range isn't. There are enough grammar experts going over FAs that I strongly doubt what is being done in those articles is incorrect. [[User:Geraldo Perez|Geraldo Perez]] ([[User talk:Geraldo Perez|talk]]) 00:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::::: Capitalization after also only matters if the colon follows an independent clause which a date range isn't. There are enough grammar experts going over FAs that I strongly doubt what is being done in those articles is incorrect. [[User:Geraldo Perez|Geraldo Perez]] ([[User talk:Geraldo Perez|talk]]) 00:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::::: You're just making shit up at this point, but I guess having a secret admin account has its privileges. [[User:Joefromrandb|Joefromrandb]] ([[User talk:Joefromrandb|talk]]) 06:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
:: {{ec}} x2 {{tq|This '''guideline''' is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, '''though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply'''. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. '''When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page'''.}} Bold emphasis mine. It is not a top-down rule that be followed, especially when it doesn't make sense. For example, the name of the band is "The Wanted," not "Wanted." It would seem you would rather continue to edit war because of your "I am right" mentality instead of discussing it, and it even says that in my quote above, per [[WP:BRD]]. Not only have you violated [[WP:3RR]], you have also violated [[WP:NPA]], both of which are policies. [[User:Amaury|Amaury]] (<small>[[User talk:Amaury|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Amaury|contribs]]</small>) 19:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
:: {{ec}} x2 {{tq|This '''guideline''' is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, '''though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply'''. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. '''When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page'''.}} Bold emphasis mine. It is not a top-down rule that be followed, especially when it doesn't make sense. For example, the name of the band is "The Wanted," not "Wanted." It would seem you would rather continue to edit war because of your "I am right" mentality instead of discussing it, and it even says that in my quote above, per [[WP:BRD]]. Not only have you violated [[WP:3RR]], you have also violated [[WP:NPA]], both of which are policies. [[User:Amaury|Amaury]] (<small>[[User talk:Amaury|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Amaury|contribs]]</small>) 19:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
::::I'm not "in doubt". You're wrong, plain and simple. [[User:Joefromrandb|Joefromrandb]] ([[User talk:Joefromrandb|talk]]) 20:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
::::I'm not "in doubt". You're wrong, plain and simple. [[User:Joefromrandb|Joefromrandb]] ([[User talk:Joefromrandb|talk]]) 20:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:37, 24 March 2019

Grammy nominated?

Where? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.199.185 (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Big Time Rush was not Grammy nominated as of December 26, 2011. Iluvmarchingband (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Belt

Dustin Belt is the guitarist but he still hangs out with the band and is in Heffron Drive with Kendall! I suggest that he is merged into the Big Time Rush article! Who's with me? -80.4.135.223 (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Album?

How do we know that there's going to be an new album in 2015? When did Kendall Schmidt confirm that? Any sources on that? Where did the info about their new contract with Columbia come from? Hagandas (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 August 2015

The following is a closed 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: Not moved. A dab page can be created if someone wishes to do so. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– After becoming a real-life band, I'd like to think that they're more notable than the TV show they were featured in. Unreal7 (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as proposed. More notable one over the other is not really the main consideration as to whether or not one page or the other should be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Big Time Rush (band) had 14776 views over the last 30 days. Big Time Rush had 27689 views over the last 30 days. Also the TV series article (November 3, 2009) proceeded the band article (July 15, 2010) so there some historical reason to keep it primary with a hatnote pointing to the band article as well as the band creation itself being an offshoot of the TV series. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After some further consideration, I don't see a huge difference in page views for one to be a strong primary. With the confusion possible I think that Big Time Rush should be moved to Big Time Rush (TV series) as suggested but Big Time Rush (band) left as is and a disambiguation page created at Big Time Rush pointing to both articles and other related topics. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose no primary, create dab In ictu oculi (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; as In ictu oculi said, a dab page is probably the best bet per the precedent set by The Cheetah Girls. Chase (talk | contributions) 17:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. With the page views presented above (90 day views are similar), this is certainly not the primary topic. In fact, if some of the tv shows views are intended for the band, then I would say there is no primary topic. The tv show should be moved, and a disambiguation page should be created. kennethaw88 • talk 22:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – the TV series is more the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC than the (now-defunct) group, and is only likely to become more so over time. That said, I can live with the WP:TWODABS option. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:40, 11 August 2015 (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.

Band broke up

It has been more than 2 years with no activity. Article said hiatus based on stated hopes but the members have moved on and there has been nothing documented showing any movement towards starting up again. If they ever do get back together we can document that but as of now we should just reflect reality in this article that the band is no more. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed – the band was essentially a creation of the TV show, and no one should be surprised that the band pretty much ended when the TV show did. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is an announcement of the band getting back together supported by a reliable source, the fact remains that 2 years is sufficient have the article reflect the reality that the band is done and the members have moved on. In the unlikely event that they do get back together, we can change the article to reflect that they reformed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This continues. 3 years with nothing from any of the members now. They've all moved on. They will not be getting back together. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Big Time Rush (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Big Time Rush (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization after colons and capitalization of proper nouns

Things like The Wanted are official band names and should be capitalized in accordance with being a proper noun, and that includes "the." Words after a colon are generally always capitalized, with very few exceptions. See MOS:CAPS and MOS:COLON. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I've repeatedly pointed out, MOS:THEMUSIC. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dependent clauses after colons begin with lowercase letters (although your "colleague" GP seems to feel that "formation and BTR" is an independent clause; hint: it isn't). Joefromrandb (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Band names are a Wikipedia exception to the general rule about capitalizing proper names. See MOS:MUSIC § Names (definite article). General heated discussion in archives for The Beatles seems to have led to that as a general rule. For the header the date is not a sentence, it is just an intro tag. What follows is not part of the intro tag and should be treated as a separate entity, a sentence fragment in sentence case. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're proving my point, for fuck's sake. A "sentence fragment" is, by definition, a dependent clause, and therefore should be lowercase. Holy shit, this is an astonishingly simple concept. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the part where it's a header, which falls under MOS:HEAD. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where, exactly, does MOS:HEAD say a dependent clause after a colon should be uppercase? Joefromrandb (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some FA examples of this formatting style for headers Amy Adams, Ben Affleck, Charlie Chaplin. Even The Beatles which led to the "the" band name rule and a nonFA The Rolling Stones. Other options are John Barrymore with date following or Vidya Balan with date as parenthetical. Date range and text description are treated as separate stand-alone items. Basically same as a title and subtitle are treated for creative works Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. People look to FAs as templates on how to do things and as exemplars on how to interpret style guidelines when they are not clear. This article is conforming to normal practices as to how date range intro tags are handled in section names. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So the answer is that MOS:HEAD does not, in fact, say to capitalize a dependent clause following a colon. As I thought. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares?! Article content is determined by editor consensus, and the rest of all agree that the current style is correct for headers. Because it's common sense. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bzzzzzt, error. See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and who the hell is "the rest of us", anyway? Joefromrandb (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalization after also only matters if the colon follows an independent clause which a date range isn't. There are enough grammar experts going over FAs that I strongly doubt what is being done in those articles is incorrect. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're just making shit up at this point, but I guess having a secret admin account has its privileges. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) x2 This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. Bold emphasis mine. It is not a top-down rule that be followed, especially when it doesn't make sense. For example, the name of the band is "The Wanted," not "Wanted." It would seem you would rather continue to edit war because of your "I am right" mentality instead of discussing it, and it even says that in my quote above, per WP:BRD. Not only have you violated WP:3RR, you have also violated WP:NPA, both of which are policies. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "in doubt". You're wrong, plain and simple. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Time_Rush_(group)&oldid=889212089"