Talk:People Like Us (2012 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Lstanley1979, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 11:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC).Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles[reply]

On 20 April 2013, it was proposed that this article be moved from People like Us (film) to People Like Us (film). The result of the discussion was page moved.

Ugly title

I'd hate to start another "i/Into Darkness" debate (although they do have the same producers), but has anyone seen the title capitalized "People like Us" instead of "People Like Us" outside of Wikipedia? If not then the page name should be corrected. FallingGravity (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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: both pages moved (film and soundtrack) per WP:NCCAPS. I don't see a need for separate articles, but that's for another day. Miniapolis 11:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Miniapolis 11:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People like Us (film) → People Like Us (film) – Although it might be used as a preposition, the word "like" should be capitalized per WP:Common name. FallingGravity (talk) 08:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, of course, it is in error as written. Red Slash 20:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note - a name change here would also affect the title of People like Us (soundtrack). FallingGravity (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Like is capitalized.[1] Apteva (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sod the references. This is purely a style matter, where people often disagree what should or shouldn't bear capitals. Although it isn't often argued that 'like' should be downcased as a preposition, it clearly falls within the scope of that rule. It's what the policy says, and I think that ought to be enough. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 09:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious to know why people think the word "like" is used as a preposition instead of a verb. Was it title-dropped or something? Or did the film creators just outright state it? FallingGravity (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- indeed, such a title could be intended to be taken as a double entendre, of the two embraceable meanings of "like." DeistCosmos (talk) 22:19, 1 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.

Requested move 27 November 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. Primarily because I find the arguments that "Like" is also functioning as a verb compelling, which obviously negates all supports simply based on MOS:CT. As an aside, I would also echo SmokeyJoe that the part of MOS:CT that seems to cause the most consternation is prepositions that are four letters. Rather than starting RMs on individual pages that seem to drag this dispute (sources overwhelmingly capitalise vs our house style), perhaps it would be better to start a RfC on the guideline talk page about this issue. Jenks24 (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– "like" is a preposition and should be lowercased. Uppercasing "like" makes it look like a verb. "People like us" can have two or more meanings, but only one meaning is intended. I don't think the title intends to use "like" as a verb unless authors prove that "like" is a verb of the title. The previous RM had support just because sources tend to uppercase "Like" without knowing or caring about grammar of the title of the film. If people like us, people like us. If people like us like to uppercase it, then other people like us like to lowercase the word. Enough puns or tongue twisters, the current style makes the title confusing. George Ho (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per MOS:CT. "The words that are not capitalized (unless they are the first or last word of the title) are: ... Prepositions containing four letters or fewer". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, mostly per my previous reasoning. Also, words don't become verbs or prepositions just because we capitalise them or not; the world isn't run by Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Also I'd like to mention that MOS:CAPS states, "There are exceptions for specific cases discussed below." Let's use common sense. FallingGravity (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who else shares your sense, FallingGravity? --George Ho (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll have to find out. Anyone out there who agrees? disagrees? or has a totally different opinion? All input is welcome. FallingGravity (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator and SMcCandlish. Melonkelon (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Are there any reliable sources that use a lowercase "like" when covering this film? Let's remember the Star Trek Into Darkness fiasco where "into" was considered grammatically correct, but no sources outside Wikipedia used it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because I looked up all the mainstream reviews listed at Metacritic, and of 31 reviews, there were 30 working links that all wrote People Like Us. None of them write People like Us. Wikipedia should follow the sources here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Erik and FallingGravity. Widespread use in reliable sources is what matters per our policy on article titles, not enforcing rules solely for the sake of enforcing rules. Having this same debate about different titles is tiresome. Given previous requests like that at talk:Hurts Like Heaven it's clear there is no actual support for our so called "house style." Calidum T|C 06:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the sources found by Erik. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The studio spells it with a capital "L". Therefore it's part of the title and not necessarily a grammatical sentence whereby preposition rules come into play. I don't see where the argument lands aside from WP:OR if you're not going with the official name and presentation. Mkdw ^talk 19:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and SMcCandlish. Film Fan 22:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MOS:CT Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MOS:CT – We have a house style, and applying it consistently is the appropriate thing to do unless there is some indication that a particular topic should be an exception. I don't see a good reason for an exception here. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The exception is that there are no reliable sources shown here that write the film title as People like Us. In addition, WP:TITLETM states, "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." The official title and the secondary sources' writing of the title match; this proposed writing stands apart from these. Furthermore, MOS:TM says, "...editors should choose among styles already in use by sources (not invent new ones) and then 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." The Star Trek into Darkness fiasco was one such distraction. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 04:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: For titles of works, it is not relevant how the studio, publisher, or other external sources capitalize the title. Instead, its capitalization should follows Wikipedia's house style. This is important to achieve and maintain consistency within Wikipedia. MOS:CT clearly states that prepositions with four or less letters should be lowercased. Darkday (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"For titles of works, it is not relevant how the studio, publisher, or other external sources capitalize the title." Actually, policy states that external sources matter. WP:TITLE says, "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources... Names are often used as article titles – such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article... Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit criteria such as recognizability and naturalness... Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." If all sources write this film as People Like Us, then Wikipedia should follow suit. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a question of the name – it is only a question of how the name should be capitalized. The directly relevant guideline seems to be MOS:CT, which says to use "like" here (unless someone wants to suggest that "Like" is a verb in this title). —BarrelProof (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BarrelProof: WP:TITLE shows that it is reliable sources that determine how to write the name. If the official title is one with special characters or one in all uppercase, for example, the reliable sources' actual writing of the title trump that official title. In this case, we see consistency between the official title and how reliable sources write it. WP:NCCAPS says, "Because credibility is a primary objective in the creation of any reference work, and because Wikipedia strives to become a leading (if not the leading) reference work in its genre, formality and an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility." If Wikipedia is out of step with how virtually all reliable sources write the film title, it is not credible. This is what happened with Star Trek Into Darkness; see its talk page for related discussions and links. Also, WP:NCCAPS mentions the Chicago Manual of Style as a recommended reference work, and it appears to say that a preposition is lowercased regardless of length unless the preposition is stressed. I'm not fully sure what stressing means, but perhaps this is why the sources universally write People Like Us. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MOS:CT – So it seems to have been moved by stealth although the opposers had it... This is purely a style matter, where people often disagree what should or shouldn't bear capitals. Although it isn't often argued that 'like' should be downcased as a preposition, it clearly falls within the scope of that rule. It's what the policy says, and I think that ought to be enough. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 22:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the policy that's relevant is WP:TITLE, which Erik has explained says to follow reliable sources. The MOS is just a guideline. I also don't know how the previous move was done "stealthily" when it followed the same process as this request. Calidum T|C 00:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:COMMONNAMES, Calidum, even when commonly used, an inaccurate name is best avoided. --George Ho (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is nothing inaccurate about capitalizing a letter, even if it conflicts with a Wikipedia guideline the community at-large has never endorsed. This crusade of yours is disruptive quite frankly. Calidum T|C 02:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - You mean Talk:Four past Midnight, Talk:See, amid the Winter's Snow, Talk:A Winter amid the Ice? If not, what else do you mean "crusade". Also, I won't stop on other prepositions, but the use of "like" is the problem, not me. There should be a more centralized discussion, but at where do you think shall it take place? The use of like has been discussed everywhere. I'm thinking WP:VPIL. --George Ho (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Almost forgot, Calidum; as said, "People Like Us" looks as if they like us. Id est "Like" looks like an action done by "People". George Ho (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        If anyone is actually unclear about the meaning of like in this instance, I sincerely doubt it matters whether the L is upper or lower case. Calidum T|C 20:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above discussion. Wikipedia's "house style" (often organized and discussed by a limited amount of people) has been used as a reason to literally change the titles of major books and films. Changed them, actually changed the "real" title into something different in their foremost encyclopedic representation. This doesn't seem fair to the creator's of the work and the work's fans. Four Past Midnight is one that stands out as a recent decision which literally changed the title of a popular book by one of the world's most popular living authors into something almost unrelated. On that one, "Past" was capitalized for a reason, and at some point should be revisited (maybe after the severity of the house style is lessened). Randy Kryn 12:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've researched Four Past Midnight and cannot find any reliable sources writing "past". WP:NCCAPS says Wikipedia, to be credible, needs to adhere to widely used conventions. It did not look credible when it wrote Star Trek into Darkness, and it is not looking credible here when it cannot follow secondary sources in their approach. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article Four past Midnight shows the cover of the first edition, which bears the title FOUR PAST MIDNIGHT. Does that mean the title should always be written like that? No, because that was just a stylistic choice by the cover designer or by the publisher. Four Past Midnight is another stylistic variant, as is Four past Midnight. But it's always the same title. The words are the same, the letters are the same, only their capitalization is different. And there are no universal rules for the capitalization of titles. Instead, there are many style guides, and publishers and organizations either adopt an existing style guide, or define their own. If other sources capitalize the prepositions past and like, this simply means that the style guide they have chosen prescribes that. But Wikipedia follows another style guide, the Manual of Style, which states that these prepositions should be lowercased. If someone doesn't like these rules, they should strive to change the Manual of Style. That would be more efficient than to have such discussions for countless move requests involving prepositions. Darkday (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Darkday, if you read my comments elsewhere in this discussion, you would know that I would not support an all-uppercase title. The gist of my argument is that we should follow the reliable sources in how they write the title. All of the reviews at Metacritic write it as People Like Us. There are a couple mentioned below, but I find the vast majority of sources to write it in titlecase. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If people want sources lowercasing like, here are Sri Lankan source and Radio Times. George Ho (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George invited me. Always difficult boundary at the four letter preposition that might not be a preposition. What does the title mean? Is "like" being used as a verb? Yes no or both? If in doubt, follow the most reliable reputable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a statement from the director: "Yeah, I think what I like about the title is it does different things. I wanted a title that said this is who we are as a species. We're messy and complicated and we make mistakes and we're flawed, but we're human, and that's who we are. And I also kind of liked the idea that if Frankie and Sam were talking to each other and said, 'You know, people like us!' So it worked on both of those levels." (411 Mania, see also Crave). While the quote isn't really clear on the matter, if one of the different things the title does is confuse us whether the word 'like' is a verb or preposition or both then I think it has succeeded. FallingGravity (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking at the quote, the director appears to intentionally use "like" as a preposition. He didn't say whether a person likes them or they like them as people, like a romance chick flick. He probably meant that we are humans like them. --George Ho (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BD2414 below, it looks like it is intentionally a double-entendre, with "like" alternatively acting as a preposition and as a verb. As such, the MOSCT cannot be applied, as it calls for the preposition to be uncapitalised, and verb to be capitalised. Therefore, Wikipedia should follow predominant source usage, which overwhelmingly when written in TitleCase uses "Like". I note that primary sources prefer ALLCAPS giving no clue as to the author's intention, supporting the observation of an intentional double-entendre. I also note that the weakest consensus for the parts of MOSCT is for the part on four letter prepositions. There is no shame in following the sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I see this title as a double-entendre, not at all uncommon in the film business. I would need to see sources clearly indicating that it is not intended to be taken that way. bd2412 T 18:19, 10 December 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.

Policy discussion in progress

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects this page, suggesting that the capitalization of "like" should be removed. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — $Llywelyn II$ 12:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]