This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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: Moved. I'd have thought "and yet" is a two word coordinating conjunction myself, so the two words should individually conform to the usual lowercasing rule. It is logically equivalent to a one word "and", "but", "yet" etc. No opposition, so I'm going ahead and moving this. — Amakuru (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
So Near and Yet so Far → So Near and yet So Far – "So" should be uppercased per MOS:CT. As for "yet", I would like to have a combined nomination of this article and the other, but this title also contains "and". Both of them separately are coordinating conjunctions. MOS:CT says that coordinating conjunctions are to be lowercased. However, "and yet" looks very tricky as a phrasal term. Does "yet" function as a coordinating conjunction? If so, "yet" should be lowercased. If not, it may function as an adverb, required by MOS:CT to be uppercased. Also, many sources uppercase "yet" in reference to the song, not the film that I'm discussing separately. Take your pick. George Ho (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
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.
Though it is too late, I absolutely oppose this move. Wikipedia policy is irrelevant where common usage is concerned, IMO. Porter would have published it otherwise. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
@Gareth E. Kegg: I think common usage with regard to capitalisation would only come into play if almost all sources capitalised it a particular way. But as far as I can see, sources vary about how they write this. Some say "So Near and yet So Far", some say "So Near And Yet So Far", others say "So Near and Yet So Far" etc. Given the inconsistency, we consult our own house style to determine which one to use, which is as defined at MOS:CT. Do you have any evidence to suggest that there is a consistent usage favouring the old title? If you have something convincing that hasn't been mentioned above, I could reopen the RM, but otherwise I'm inclined to leave it as stands, because I think it conforms to our naming conventions now. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 11:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)