Talk:As Long as You Love Me

Who moved this page?
I personally think the Backstreet Boys song deserve to be the primary topic (and hence this article shouldn't have been moved), but if you must move it please fix all the links too, there are too many links that point to this page.--  Krystaleen  09:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 1 April 2016

 * 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. Consensus is that the proposed title would not conform to our manual of style. I'm not sure which aspect of WP:NCCAPS is alleged to conflict with MOS:CAPS, but from the discussion there is no consensus that they are in conflict, and generally we use our house style even for titles. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

– "As long as" can be used as either a preposition or correlative conjunction. In this case, "you love me" is a sentence; "as long as" is used as a correlative conjunction. "As" is not a preposition in the titles of the same name. "As" is not a "coordinating" type, i.e. among FANBOYS. Therefore, "As" should be uppercased per WP:NCCAPS in not just one song title but other song titles as well. I tried to individually request changing just one title, but that confused people. As for sources, they are too lengthy for a bot to transclude; they will be posted separately. George Ho (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As Long as You Love Me → As Long As You Love Me
 * As Long as You Love Me (Backstreet Boys song) → As Long As You Love Me (Backstreet Boys song)
 * As Long as You Love Me (Justin Bieber song) → As Long As You Love Me (Justin Bieber song)
 * As Long as You Love Me (Caleb Johnson song) → As Long As You Love Me (Caleb Johnson song)

Backstreet Boys: book 1, book 2, book 3, book 4, book 5, book 6, book 7, book 8, book 9, Rolling Stone, Justin Bieber: book 1, book 2, book 3, book 4 (includes Youtube), book 5, book 6, book 7, LA Times, Las Vegas Sun, Sydney Morning Herald BB and Bieber: book 1, book 2 Caleb Johnson: Bustle, Music Times, ABC News (American), MTV, AJC, LA Times Unreliable sources: republished Wikipedian articles, all caps Do not add songwriter names as disambiguators; who the songwriter was, if not the famous performer, is almost always information people don't know and may be looking for; it is not something they already know which is defining of the topic in the public mind, ergo it does not help disambiguate. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources
 * Add songwriters' names immediate comment about this dab page is not about the capital "A" in as but about who unhelpful it is to not have / remove songwriters names when there are multiple songs and different covers of different songs. It may not matter with the recent ones which haven't been covered yet, but for songs from the 1950s and 1960s it's essential. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Correlative conjunctions are treated the same as coordinating ones; the only conjunction exception to the lowercasing of conjunctions in titles is the subordinating variety. The second as may look subordinating to the uninitiated, but it is half of an as ... as correlative construction, exactly like either ... or, in which we would certainly not capitalize or. The nom's "sources" fail WP:INDY and are WP:PRIMARY (i.e. are just direct regurgitation of the record label's own style) or are music journalism publishers following their own house style (based directly on the PR style of their advertisers!), which is not WP house style. The nom is not paying attention to MOS:CAPS, MOS:TITLES, and MOS:TM: We do not "honor" marketing stylizations, including "special" capitalization on pop single covers, unless an overwhelming majority of independent, reliable, secondary sources sources do so, which is not the case here. As has been demonstrated to George Ho again and again, this overcapitalization is a public relations (marketing) and journalism style quirk from the Associated Press Stylebook and some British news publishers, which (per WP:NOT) WP is not obligated to mimic. WP has its own style guide, and it is based on general-purpose off-WP style guides, which do not excessively capitalize in this manner.
 * Why should I, Stanton? These MOSes are just guidelines for writing an article, not article titles. Also, "as" is not a coordinating conjunction (or one of FANBOYS). I cite MOS only because other editors keep ignoring NCCAPS and use pointless MOS instead. George Ho (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * George, no one wants to see disharmony between article titles and article text. Tony   (talk)  01:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @George Ho: I know it's not a coordinating conjunction in this case; I just said so, too. It's correlative. Please don't play WP:IDHT games. MOS is WP's style manual, and titles are part of articles. Both AT and the NC pages defer with explicit cross-references to MOS wherever style matters come up. NCCAPS does not actually conflict with MOS at all; it explains how to apply MOS to titles, and cites MOS  times, both generally and as to specifics, and even where it does not, what it says is derived from the equivalent sections in MOS.  Anyway, the over-capitalization you favor is simply marketing style preferred by RIAA/MPAA and used often by the entertainment press, who do what RIAA/MPAA wants because almost all their actual money comes from media-company advertisers.  It's not WP's job to pander to the promotional desires of these companies.  The  words in titles and the like are capitalized, in mainstream prose as recommended by mainstream style guides, to highlight them as important; if everything is emphasized equally, then nothing is emphasized, the volume has simply been turned up for no reason. Off-WP style guides make this point explicitly as the reason that English (like other languages) does not use "Capitalize The First Letter Of A Word No Matter What It Is" style.  When advertisers do it, they're not trying to emphasize particular words at all, but emphasize their entire product side by side with other products (which is why so many of them either ALL-CAP or use weird stylization (unusual fonts, bright colors, etc.) or both at once.  The other extreme is using "down style", the excessive decapitalizing of more and more things, often  but proper nouns and the first word, so that you have sentence case for titles, as in "The omphaloskepsis effect in nineteenth-century German basketweaving pedagogy: a multi-disciplinary review", barely recognizable as a title. It is "high academic" style, and has evolved for a similar but opposite reason from PR/journo style: The titles of works are being intentionally and uniformly de-emphasized across the board, because in academic journals, the important information in a citation is considered to be the authors and their reputations, not the title they gave their paper, which has to stand on the merits of its data and analysis (publish-or-perish strongly reinforces this, for author self-interest reasons).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Stanton and Dicklyon, if you want me to review MOS guidelines, I'll do it for rebuttal. MOS:CT does not require words shorter than five letters to be capitalized or not capitalized unless a word is either the first or last word of a title. It doesn't say short words are required to (or should) be lowercased or uppercased. Same for WP:NCCAPS. Therefore, this all comes down to consensus... and manuals of writing. As far as I can see, you oppose uppercasing "As", even as a conjunction. It's not because of MOS, which is uncertain about the word "As" at this point. Probably because... "As" is a two-letter word not to be treated the same as four-letter "Like". Maybe it's the letter count, but probably that's not the case because of "Be" in titles, like To Be with You. Why else oppose uppercasing "As"? --George Ho (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @Stanton and Dicklyon: Re-reviewing MOS:CT, MOS:CT says that subordinating conjunctions should be uppercased; same for "." I must have overlooked both. I don't like the idea of using MOS:CT instead of WP:NCCAPS, but if you want me to use it, I'll use it reluctantly. --George Ho (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If a title convention is out of sync with the MOS, we should fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Something wrong with WP:NCCAPS, Dicklyon? George Ho (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If there's a conflict, it should be resolved, in favor of mainstream practice, not extreme academic practice or extreme journalism practice. But RM isn't the place to get into that. NC caps just defers to and summarizes major points from MOS, so I don't see that there's a conflict. It's likely that the MOS:CT wording is slightly too vague. It was instituted to get at cases where a word that can be a preposition is used as an integral part of a unitary but multi-word construction, like "on" in "tune in to the radio"; "to tune is" a verbal phrase that acts as a unitary verb. The "have the same form ... but are not being used specifically as propositions" wording was not intended to serve as a loophole for overcapitalization of non-coordinating conjunctions.  Ever after researching every major style guide on these questions, off and on for a month, I did not see one single case of an off-WP style guide calling for capitalization of two-letter correlative conjunctions, only coordinating ones, and not even all of them do so.  WT:MOSCAPS is the place to address this in detail. I'm pretty sure some external style guides have addressed the "sometimes capitalize words that can be propositions when they're not being used as prepositions" cases in more precision, and we can adapt language from them that is clearer than what we have now.  It's also worth looking into the history of the guidelines and see if we had better wording before. A certain indeffed editor made a lot of undiscussed changes to a lot of MoS pages over the last 7 years....  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose – especially after hearing George claim that titles are not subject to the same styling guidelines as article text; this is just nonsense. And SMcC's point makes sense.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 8 April 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.''


 * Post-RM comment (I just noticed this): Canvassing of admins like this needs to stop.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)