Talk:The Morning Post

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Morning Post)

[Untitled][edit]

Yours truly,--Ludvikus 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Move had been requested on said page on September 27, 2007. --Ludvikus 23:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

0. The Morning Post[edit]

Why is it not The Morning Post?

Yours truly, Ludvikus 14:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to "move" this page. The correct title is as follows: 

    The Morning Post
Sources [1] [2] [3] [4] indicate that the definite article "The" was not in fact part of the title of the newspaper. older ≠ wiser 12:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it seems there are differences among sources. Let's look at the evidence.

Sources that exclude the definite article from the title:

Sources that include the definite article in the title:

Sources that are mixed or inconclusive:

The Morning Post[edit]

I think the recent editor who has reverted the article's move to eliminate the article "The" as part of the name is mistaken. I'll return with supporting evidence of my position soon. --Ludvikus 12:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm note yet certain if the following item is our paper (note the 1792 1st issue date):
C Control No.: sn 93048156
Type of Material: Serial (Periodical, Newspaper, etc.)
Uniform Title: Morning post (London, England : 1792)
Main Title: The Morning post [microform].
Published/Created: London : Printed by J. Norris, -1794.
Description: v.
Began Dec. 17, 1792.
-no. 7013 (June 30, 1794).
Current Frequency: Daily (except Sunday)
Continues: Morning post and daily advertiser (OCoLC)8696633
Continued by: Morning post and fashionable world (DLC)sn 93048157 (OCoLC)8696656
Cancelled/Invalid LCCN: sn 88088339
Notes: Description based on: No. 6144 (Jan. 1, 1793).
Additional Formats: Microfilm. Woodbridge, Conn. : Research Publications. microfilm reels ; 35 mm. (Early :English :newspapers ; 224, 693-694).
Subjects: Great Britain--History--1789-1820--Newspapers.
Great Britain--England--London.
Series: Early English newspapers ; 224, 693-694.
LC Classification: Newspaper
Other System No.: (OCoLC)ocm07523903

(Boldface "shouting" emphasis added) Please note the difference which the Cataloguer makes between the Uniform Title and the Main Title!

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you mean this entry for sn 93048156 in the LOC catalog. Note the that the "Uniform Title" is given as " Morning post (London, England : 1792)". older ≠ wiser 15:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here a quote from a British source: 

    1772 November 2
    First edition of The Morning Post is published in London.
    It runs until 1937, when it is merged with The Daily Telegraph. [5]    Sorry: --> --Ludvikus 13:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the authority on the paper:

LC Control No.: 73016946
Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Personal Name: Hindle, W. H. (Wilfrid Hope), 1903-1967.
Main Title: The Morning post, 1772-1937; portrait of a newspaper.
Published/Created: Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press [1974]
Description: xi, 260 p. front. 22 cm.
ISBN: 0837172438
Notes: Reprint of the 1937 ed. published by Routledge, London.
Includes bibliographical references.
Subjects: Morning post (London, England : 1803)
Journalism--Great Britain.
LC Classification: PN5129.L7 M66 1974
Dewey Class No.: 072/.1
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you examine what is available for this title at Google Books [6], you can see that the author apparently did not include the definite article in the title of the newspaper.

And what happened to the paper in 1803?:

LC Control No.: sn 88088294
Type of Material: Serial (Periodical, Newspaper, etc.)
Uniform Title: Morning post (London, England : 1803)
Main Title: The morning post.
Published/Created: London [England] : J. Nott, 1803-1937.
Description: v. : ill. ; 60 cm.
Issues for <1931-> also called: <157th year->
No. 10686 (Jan. 3, 1803)-no. 50561 (Sept. 30, 1937).
Current Frequency: Daily (except Sunday)
Continues: Morning post and gazetteer (DLC)sn 88088341 (OCoLC)18610781
Merger of: Daily telegraph (London, England : 1856) (DLC)sn 87062281 (OCoLC)12966231
Daily telegraph and morning post (DLC)sn 87062282 (OCoLC)12966391
Notes: Publisher varies.
Merged with: Daily telegraph (London, England : 1856), to form: Daily telegraph and morning post.
Additional Formats: Also available on microfilm from the Library of Congress Photoduplication Service, British Library, and Research Publications (Early English newspapers).
Subjects: London (England)--Newspapers.
Great Britain--England--London.
LC Classification: Newspaper 1952
Other System No.: (OCoLC)ocm18564943
Not only is our article stub incomplete and therefore inaccurate,
but there appears to be a confusion between the Uniform Title given to the paper by the library/libraries,
and its true or Main Title.
--Ludvikus 13:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's WildCat apparently on our item:

The Morning post
Type: Microform
Language: English
Publisher: London : Printed by J. Norris, -1794.
OCLC: 7523903
Related Subjects: Great Britain -- History -- 1789-1820 -- Newspapers.
Editions: 2 Editions
  • Material Type: Newspaper
  • Document Type: Serial Publication
  • Notes: Description based on: No. 6144 (Jan. 1, 1793).
  • Description: v.
  • Other Titles: Morning post (London, England : 1792) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludvikus (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you actually meant WorldCat instead of WildCat. Here is a link to OCLC# 7523903. Note that the entry also identifies "Morning post" [7] OCLS# 12966277 as well. older ≠ wiser 15:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Identifying and Locating The Morning Post[edit]

Does anyone know which Morning Post--of London--we're dealing with here?
There are/were at least two (2) in London, and there is an African one.
Also--what is the Library (and) Call Number?
And what Library in the Wold has a it?

Ludvikus 23:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Disambiguation Required[edit]

There were more than one Morning Post.

Therefore--will someone do the required Disambiguation? Ludvikus 23:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. Protocols of the Elders of Zion[edit]

(a) The easy part--can anyone identify all the issues which published the above?
(b) The hard part--can anyone identify a Library with back copies???

The Morning Post[edit]

I'm having trouble changing the name to include the article, "The."

Can someone {ADMINISTRATOR) help? Ludvikus 16:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a copy of "The Morning Post" clearly showing that "The" precededs "Morning Post." So this is conclusive proof that the artcle should be posted just like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and even The Times (London) : [8].
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While that is interesting (and I did link to it already above), it is not exactly conclusive, when there a dozens of current and historical scholarly references that explicitly do not include the definite article when referring to the paper. older ≠ wiser 21:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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

The result of the proposal was move after all. I can't but notice a certain lameness in this dispute. I researched a bit and found a mixed bag of "the" and "The" in the usage, with "the" somewhat prevailing, but not definitely. Without such a definitive answer, we might as well go after Ludvikus's suggestion of using the name in the masthead. I'm not happy to play a judge here, but since only Ludvikus seems to really care, let it be... Duja► 13:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Post → The Morning Post — User:Ludvikus feels the name of the paper was The Morning Post and that the article should be named accordingly. (This requested move section and reason added by Bkonrad since Ludvikus neglected to create the section or to actually bother to wait for discussion before commencing moves.) —older ≠ wiser 21:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • At this point, I don't actually care all that much. My main objection was that the moves were being done without discussion and, after a point, it seemed without Ludvikus even acknowledging there were contrary opinions being posted on the talk page.
  • While the title on the masthead does appear to have been The Morning Post, there are nonetheless dozens of scholarly works that explicitly do not include the definite article when referring to the paper. This seems a matter of style, which at the present time I'm unaware that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style addresses. In true Wikipedia fashion however, the guidance at Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Avoid the definite article ("the") and the indefinite article ("a"/"an") at the beginning of the page name seems in part in conflict with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name). older ≠ wiser 21:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a conflict in the guidelines, but there may be a gap. If a newspaper is a "work" in the sense of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name)#Titles of works then the name needs any initial article. The only other relevant convention I can see is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), but that explicitly states 'Many Wikipedia naming conventions guidelines contain implicit or explicit exceptions to the "common names" principle.' The scholarly references Bkonrad gives are irrelevant since those works with "the Morning Post" likewise have "the Daily Telegraph" and so on; so that's an argument for explicitly excluding all newspapers from the "include definite article" rule, rather than excluding this specific newspaper. I've asked the question on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name)#Newspapers so there might be some more discussion from there. jnestorius(talk) 00:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, perhaps the "conflicting" guidance I see in the two pages I mention is more a gap 1) Convention: If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. This would be the case for the title of a work such as a novel. Otherwise, do not include it at the beginning of the page name. This "rule of thumb" from WP:NC does not mention the bullet-point "convention" at the top of WP:NCD: If the name of the article is not the title of a work, an official name, or another proper name, avoid the definite ("the") and indefinite ("a"/"an") articles at the beginning of a page name. Here we have a situation where it is customary in many style guides to decapitalize the definite article of newspapers in running text -- yet because that article is part of the title it seems it should be part of the article title (and despite what Ludvikus might think, I'm not adamant on the issue--I'm looking for clarity on the question which does not seem to be explicitly addressed at the moment by Wikipedia guidelines). older ≠ wiser 02:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good finally to hear a 3rd voice. Let me make a new point; What's the point of the Wiki Template/Function {{DEFAUTLSORT|Morning Post, The}} ? Or is it [[DEFAULTSORT|Morning Post, The]] ? (Sorry, at the moment I forgot the Wiki Syntax). I've looked up our issue in my copy of the Chicago Manual of Style. It Give us two rules: (1) in the course of writing about Newspapers we do not Capitalize the intial "the" even if it is a part of the name of the paper. I imagine that that makes some editor(s) think of the "The" as having been "dropped" when in fact it was merely un-Capitalized. (2) There's also an Indexing rule (used by Librarians) which says that you drop the "The" even if it's in the papers Masthead. However, Wikipedia is not a Catalog, it's an Encyclopedia. So even though "the" is the most common word in the English language - and I believe that that's the reason for the rule (not to create an incredibly huge section with all the titles which begin with "The"). I think the wonder of Computerese, and Cyberspace in general, is that we no longer need to worry about such issues/problems. More to the point, the Wikifunction "DEFAULTSORT" immediately sorts Wiki Articles by having the initial "The" ignored. So it follows that we may, can, and should include the "The" which is a part of the paper's name for itself, as it occurs on its Masthead. I think because Wikipedia is such a new phenomena, we should think about the need, or lack thereof, of the rules of Style of other media. And I think that editors on Wikipedia already have incorporated this particular issue by the use of the DEFAULTSORT function. Cheers. --Ludvikus 01:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just added the Defaultsort function to the Article like so;
    {{DEFAULTSORT:Morning Post, The}} --Ludvikus 01:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Article "The"[edit]

  • There's only one editor who denies the Move: Morning Post → The Morning Post. It's User:Bkonrad. Since Wikipedia requires consistency, Mr. B. Konrad will next demand the following rash moves (assuming Consistency):
    The New York Times → New York Times
    The Washington Post → Washington Post
    The Times → Times
  • I think the confusion which arise here comes from the following:
    We do not say or write, "I read the The New York Times."
    We let the first article, so to speak, absorb the second, and get the form, "I read the New York Times."

Cheers, PS: I apologize for any offense taken by the editor above. --Ludvikus|Socrates 22:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To attempt to reply to the substantive comments Ludvicus makes, actually Wikipedia does not "require consistency", as he suggests. That desire for consistency is nothing more than a hobgoblin that haunts some editors. I nowhere suggest making any of the moves he suggests. The basic convention for naming articles is to use the name by which the subject is most commonly known. I've provided links to many scholarly publications that explicitly refer to the paper without the definite article. It is a matter of discussion what the best title for the article should be. Please try to keep personal attacks out of the discussion. older ≠ wiser 22:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've apologized to you for having offended you - and even cleaned up this place accordingly. Now I think you should do the same. It appears to me that you've adopted your pseudonym here precisely to hide your identity - that you are the only one who maintains your position. No other editor insists that the article "the" be dropped from the name of the paper. Furthermore, it appears to me that you are saying that you know that you younger than I am. Why else have you adopted that name? So why don't you also cleanup this page and use the Wiki name you used when you reverted the page several times against my editing? --Ludvikus|Socrates 22:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, apology accepted. Though I'm not sure what you mean by "you should do the same". In case you hadn't noticed, all wikipedia usernames are pseudonyms Wikipedia editors are under no obligation whatsoever to reveal anything at all about their identity. As for edits, which is what matters in the end on Wikipedia, I've made no attempt to hide my edits in anyway. older ≠ wiser 23:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that you cleanup all the talk about me and you, and let's have this page discuss only the article "The" and the Article whose name we dispute. Also, you can use any name you wish - as long as you let our reader know that the two names are are one and the same person, and that therefore there's only one person who subscribes to your position, namely yourself. Socrates.
By the same token, so far you are the only person advocating for the move. So what? Sorry if you're confused by how signatures work. But everything on the userpage is under my signature which links to my user pages. older ≠ wiser 23:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The confusion was caused by your not communicating with me while Reverting my edits, as well as the fact that your "signature" here is different from your "signature" on the History log of your edits. You are in control of your name - as is your write. However, if you use two different names, and that results in a confusion, the fault is yours alone, and no one else's. Now let's get to the topic at hand. Who determines your name, me or you? --Socrates 23:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was posting comments to this talk page throughout -- were you seeing them? There is no "signature" on the history log -- that is a purely mechanical record of username and timestamp. A signature can be personalized. Sorry if that confused you, but, well, I guess you'll just have to get over it. older ≠ wiser 02:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary: The other editor mistakenly believes that because scholarly authorities drop the initial "The" from the name of the paper, we can disregard what the paper's name is as given on its Masthead. He further disputes the need for stylistic consistency at Wikipedia; the fact that we have "The Times" is irrelevant to him. On the contrary, I point out that it is customery at Wikipedia to commence an Article with all the names under which the subject is known, and that our practice is to name a topic, or person, by his, hers, or its, official name, or name under which the subject itself goes by, rather than by some conventions, like those of Cataloguers. Accordingly, the article "The" should be included, and the Article should be moved accordingly. --Ludvikus 23:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could do with a little less bias in such supposed "Summary" statements. 1) Wikipedia guidance was not clear on the issue of including the definite article and has apparently shifted somewhat. 2) You place a request on WP:RM and then proceeded to move the page yourself without waiting for any discussion. I happened to notice this and did a simple check on Google with results that seemed to indicate that the definite article was not part of the name. There is no harm in leaving the article as is and allowing the requested move process to work through some discussion and reach consensus. Overheated rhetoric and your continued attribution of misguided motives on my part does not help matters. older ≠ wiser 02:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It obviously could not be cosidered a controversial issue - to include or exclude "the" from the name of an article. Wikipedia encourages boldness. And I do not think Moving an article to include "the" in its name on Wikipedia could cause a reasonable man (which I consider myself to be) from anticipating the passion which this issue inspires in one editor. Now I notice that you've been around since 2004. So you are my senior when it comes to the time status here - whatever that gives one. How can I get you to tone down your mood? I have not accused you of anything but Reverting my Moves with only comments under your vother name left on the history tract. So how can I get you to relax? I do not wish to upset you. All I ask is that the rules of Wikipedia be consistently applied. And in that regard I maintain that the article should be Moved to include "The." Let me give you an example of a page which has passionate and dedicated editors. It is called as follows:
   The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Do you think one would have a chance of having the initial "The" dropped from the article name? --Ludvikus 03:29, 30 September 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Morning_Post&oldid=1209181615"