Jump to content

Talk:See You When I Am Famous

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

Requested move 31 July 2020

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

See You When I Am Famous → See You When I Am Famous!!!!!!!!!!!! – It's possible that this may have gone through as an uncontroversial and uncontested move, but because of the unusual case with the punctuation I thought it best to have a discussion. The article's overall notability is weak, but what reliable sources exist, all list this album with the 12 exclamation marks at the end of its title. These include the Billboard chart placing [1], the review in The Post (which probably isn't acceptable, as it's a student newspaper) [2], and articles in Uproxx [3], HotNewHipHop [4] and Complex [5]. Richard3120 (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Jerm (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How would we decide what number of exclamation marks is acceptable and what is stylisation, though? What about Get Happy!! (Elvis Costello album) and Summer Days (And Summer Nights!!), are they acceptable? Richard3120 (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We know it is both the correct name and the one used by the majority of reliable sources -- given we are an encyclopedia based entirely off of those reliable sources, another title that we know is not the correct one and is used in a minority of sources seems a bit silly.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused - as I've shown above, this album is shown in a majority of reliable sources as having 12 exclamation marks. So I don't see the difference with those two albums. Richard3120 (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I agree with you. I'm saying it would be silly to intentionally choose a title we know is both A)not the correct official one and B)not used in a majority of sources.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm even more confused now – so why are you opposing the move, given that it meets both of your requirements? Richard3120 (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Strike that... I've only just realised that you are agreeing with me and that I'm replying to a different person. My total apologies, Yaksar. Richard3120 (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One other point. Even if we do say that multiple punctuation points is considered a stylism, the guideline you cite tells us to support this move. "When a name is almost never written except in a particular stylized form, use that form on Wikipedia." Could you explain why we should instead ignore the guideline you cite?--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Too soon (or too recent) to tell whether later sources would use the bunch of exclamation points. Relying on recent sources to verify commonality of the official title won't do us any good but rather frustrate readers by redirecting them to the official title. Moreover, the proposed title would fail WP:CONCISE (part of WP:CRITERIA), IMHO. Furthermore, the album itself came out very recently. If neither of those policies apply, how about WP:ADHERENCE? George Ho (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"...frustrate readers by redirecting them to the official title" – so what is the official title, then? Richard3120 (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this a rhetorical question? Official title ≠ commonly used title. Look at articles about soundtracks not using the full titles, like The Bodyguard (soundtrack). George Ho (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to be clear about your reasoning... it's just that it seems to me that in this case both the official title and the commonly used title, as used in reliable sources, include the exclamation marks. So I'm not sure where the rationale is for not including them. I understand your point about WP:CONCISE, but this is where my previous question to Yaksar comes in... clearly we all think that two exclamation marks in the two albums that I have as examples does not contravene WP:CONCISE. So at what point do we consider the number of exclamation marks to exceed this guideline? Richard3120 (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources must have copied and pasted the whole title from other sources. I also really doubt that critics and journalists would be very precise on the amount of exclamation points from the title. The proposed title would not be in most readers' best interests when trying to search for the album. Furthermore, to this date, there are no other albums or topics of the same name. Moreover, those sources using the whole title doesn't make the whole title commonly used. And I don't think modifying or clarifying rules is necessary. We should use common sense and decide whether the proposed title is too long especially for an average reader and non-fan of that artist named Joey (unless I got the name wrong). --George Ho (talk) 09:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I agree with that, to be honest – I don't believe Wikipedia should be making the decision as to whether a title is too long for a casual reader, or deciding arbitrarily how many exclamation points are acceptable in a title (why two are okay, but twelve are not). I believe that if there aren't any reliable sources that leave out the exclamation marks, then there's no way we can state that it's the common title if nobody is using it like that. And as you say, there are no other articles with the title, so the search isn't an issue – the title of the album will come up before you start putting the exclamation marks in. Richard3120 (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How would AutoComplete, which makes searching easier and more convenient, improve titling matters? George Ho (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it would. But I was just replying to your mention of it, saying I can't see how it would be an issue. Richard3120 (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
George Ho, I just want to make sure I have this right because the rationale sounds quite frankly crazy to me. When determining if the proposed title is the primary topic, we need to throw out sources that are using the proposed title because, in your opinion, they "must have copied and pasted the whole title from other sources." Do I have that right?--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but this is nuts. Because the only sources we have are recent, we should disregard what they use to describe the subject? This might make sense if, say, we were comparing with older resources, but those don't exist. It is ridiculous to say that we should ignore what sources call something to intentionally use an incorrect name because of a guess that maybe in the future sources will start calling it something else.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. And given that this has hardly set the charts alight and got people talking about it and reviewing it, the likelihood of more sources turning up in future months looks slim. Richard3120 (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No point in adding the exclamation marks, either for reader benefit or according to policy. The existing title is trivially more concise by which I mean that it's unambiguous and that any occurrence of the longer title in sources can count as an occurrence of the shorter title too. So the shorter title should be preferred. Have a redirect for the longer one by all means, but even that achieves very little... the pipe trick can be used to link to the longer title from running text. Andrewa (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa: so, still nobody has answered my question... why are two or three exclamation marks acceptable, but twelve are not? Richard3120 (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because two wrongs don't make a right. Maybe these other cases should be reviewed. Or maybe there are other factors more important in those cases. Andrewa (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still super confused. It's not like we are questioning which is the correct, official and commonly used one, are we? I don't think our policy for concise titles is meant be taken as pick a title that doesn't meet all of those... There's also no point in adding an exclamation point to Oh, the Places You'll Go!, except for the fact that this is what the actual and commonly used name is... --Yaksar (let's chat) 18:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct is indeed what is being questioned. Official as in what primary sources use is not terribly relevant. As to the common name, every time a person calls it See You When I Am Famous!!!!!!!!!!!! they have also called it See You When I Am Famous and See You When I Am Famous! etc etc. so adding all the exclamation marks doesn't help at all, either in terms of the policy or in helping people to find the article (which is just as well as that's the main thing the policy is intended to achieve). But a redirect is a good idea, to save the need for the pipe trick in linking, and so I've created it. No other articles yet link to it yet but they may in the future, and meantime it does no harm. Andrewa (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But what is the rationale we are questioning it is correct under? We have the artist explaining why it is the name, and we have it as the commonly used name in independent sources, in the majority. And adding exclamation points or question marks also doesn't help clarify the name of a Dr. Seuss book, or really any punctuation in any title, but we still use that because that is the name.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct in terms of our article naming policy, and in terms of which the primary source you cite in which the artist explains why they use the name they do is of little relevance. I think I have already answered the other points you make here. Andrewa (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware that "correct" is not necessarily "official," but I don't think our policies on how we determine might determine correct ever say that it would not be the title used in primary sources along with secondary, tertiary, etc... And I get what you are saying that technically the shorter title is captured in uses of the longer title, but that's just now how titling works, just as Star Wars Episode II is technically still always being said whenever someone writes Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to dig a bit I admit! But follow the trails and secondary sources are still preferred. Not as strongly or consistently as they once were, due to instruction creep at least in part. And some use of primary sources has always been allowed and still is, but you were basing an argument entirely on one interview. That particular argument won't stand up at all IMO.
The Star Wars example is more complex than this one; the title of The Empire Strikes Back doesn't even mention that it's also Episode V. And Star Wars Episode II isn't strictly a substring of Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones. Some search algorithms would find it, some not. Andrewa (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I actually agree with you about preferring secondary sources, to be clear! That interview was just to show that it wasn't simply a stylism, but rather that there is intended meaning behind the punctuation. I was not saying we need to defer to primary sources, I was just saying both primary and secondary sources here seem to most commonly use the proposed title, and that there is not a dispute between them. If there was, I'd probably agree with you that we should fall on the side of independent sources. Or in short: when a title is the commonly used one in both primary and secondary sources, I don't think there's ever much debate on if it is correct.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also like, Jesus Christ I said like 100 times that I'm basing this off what independent sources commonly use. I have no idea why in this back and forth you keep insisting I'm only basing this off one primary source claim.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (EDIT: per below, although) full name with quote marks and exclamation marks (EDIT: seems better), and not exclamation mark alone as this move requests. If the full name is being asked for, then the full name should be used. If not, then at least that's how the first mention should show it (was surprised to not see the exclamation marks in the first mention) and will add the full name there, at least. If the name is to be shortened, then the present name is as good as the proposed name, because both of them leave out the quote marks. Question: Does the song have the exclamation marks? It's listed without them on the page. If it doesn't then the present title of this page seems to be about the song and not the album. So if they are left off the song I'd be more inclined to support this move (might also explain some of the sources printing the top heavy exclamation-point-laden full name of the album, so it's not confused with the song). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On official sources like Spotify and Youtube, as well as in most reliable secondary sources, the album seems to have the exclamation points and the song does not. Reliable sources, primary and secondary, all pretty much use the exclamation points for the album title. The quotation marks are sometimes used in secondary sources, but it does not seem to be a majority of the time (and ditto for primary sources -- the album on spotify does not have quotes, for example).--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Changed to Support to differentiate the album title from the song title, although adding the quote marks seems more accurate. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the song were notable, wouldn't both "(song)" and "(album)" be used instead as better alternatives? Speaking of notable, the album article seems short, and the singles of this album don't have their own articles yet. --George Ho (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have other pages ending with multiple punctuation marks, don't we? (I'm not challenging you, I just legitimately have no idea how that works!)
Like the band !!! and their self-titled album, for example... Richard3120 (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hah that's actually the exact one I checked.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the band yes, but the more ! you add, the more likely you are stopped because the system might read it at "stop/warn non-confirmed user adding multiple repetitive characters". I didn't have to go too far [6][7][8], it seems that users are affected by filters 135 and 384 as well. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 23:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair question! Certainly defer to the closing admin there, but if that's what blocks the move I'd hope that is made clear in the closure (and not, for example, that a compelling argument is "the proposed title is overwhelmingly used in secondary sources, but that may change in the future for all we know").--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If technical limitations mean that the exclamation points can't be displayed, I will happily accept that the title may need to stay as it is – similar to Robot Face, for example, I understand that sometimes characters can't be displayed properly. Otherwise, I'd note that there is another reliable source now that also uses the full 12 exclamation points, the review at AllMusic [9]. Richard3120 (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are no technical issues here, but established editors will have to help newbies to add the title when it is mentioned. It seems that this will be one of those albums that will have no real impact to the music world, so fortunately it will not be mentioned multiple times. © Tbhotch™ 18:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"ENG" would be the right example. © Tbhotch™ 18:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Stupid. Wikipedia does not slavishly copy commercial gimmicky punctuation styling. Or it shouldn’t. The lack of quality independent secondary sources means stick closer to WP standard styling. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? We have dozens of reliable, independent sources. And our guidelines direct us to follow those quality sources when they overwhelmingly and clearly use a name, whether you personally think it's a stupid one or not.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think it's a silly name, but again that means nothing. If you think the sources aren't good enough, then you should nominate the article for deletion -- but otherwise our policy is to adhere to sources when they clearly and overwhelmingly use a title. (That being said, while isn't getting front page NY Times coverage, Uproxx, Billboard, and ABC Radio News are all perfectly fine reliable sources.)--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think silly styling is suitable for editorial judgement. Excessive repeated sentence terminating characters definitely so. If the exclamation marks are removed, the meaning is unaltered,meaning it is just styling. There sources are good enough for a mere song article, but are not good enough for exceptions to house styling. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be suitable for editorial judgement if usage in sources was mixed. But as it stands, our guidelines clearly tell us to follow styles overwhelming used by sources, regardless of whether we consider that dumb, just as we do for English and other language names, or full names and nicknames, or legal names and stage names, even if they are something absurd (and the same would be for the opposite, which we see often -- when weird names are "official" but we choose to use the form shown by secondary sources!)--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't have a style overwhelmingly used by sources when the list of sources is so recent and thin. One should not be so easily overwhelmed. This is like M*A*S*H, except M*A*S*H has exception recognition styled as that, it doesn't have silly hard-to-count repetition, and it doesn't mess up sentence punctuation if you attempt to use it in running text. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and WP:TITLETM: 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 (admittedly few) independent sources all use the exclamation marks. There's no question what the most common usage is, therefore that's the name we use, regardless of how ugly it is. Bernat (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:See_You_When_I_Am_Famous&oldid=1211359852"