User talk:Espoo/Archive 2

The Beatles
Please stop making edits like this. First of all, their name as "The Beatles" is one of the mostly universally accepted spellings in the universe. Look at their albums. Look at Ringo's first drum kit: The Beatles. And secondly, your link doesn't work, and Rolling Stone uses "The Beatles". Please stop this kind of editing. Ward3001 (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you look at the links provided? http://www.beatles.com/core/beatles/65/ http://www.beatles.com/core/beatles/intro/ http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/thebeatles/biography Reputable sources like these and for example Britannica use the correct spelling with "the". --Espoo (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Look at this page on The Beatles' official website. The Beatles. Repeat: The Beatles. With an UPPERCASE "T" in "The". You are making contentious edits, and it is your responsibility to provide a reliable source that verifies the spelling has a lowercase "t" in "The". You can't just cite websites that carelessly spell it, you need official verification of the spelling. Now please discuss this on the talk page and cease edit warring. Ward3001 (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

DISCUSS ON THE TALK PAGE --- CEASE EDIT WARRING
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ward3001 (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous; you're the one who started the edit war and without anything except your opinion to try to discredit the reputable sources provided. You're confusing graphic layout decisions with official spelling. --Espoo (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Rock music WikiProject
I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Rock music WikiProject. There's alot of Rock-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Rock music pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Stutter, stutter, Beatles
OK... When it is alright to say "I like Beatles", or when someone says the project should be called "Beatles' Project", or even when anybody says that "Beatles were John, Paul, George, and Ringo", I will accept it. Personally, to say "I like Beatles" (meaning the whole group) makes me feel sick.--andreasegde (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The The
Examples of the uppercase definitive article (The): On TV and radio:
 * The Office, The Apprentice, The Wire, The Archers, and The Likely Lads

Bands: Of course, if you have a foreign name like Los Lobos (The Wolves) or Los Super Seven, it's OK...

Newspapers: Other links:
 * The Who,The Drifters, The Band, The Libertines, The The, The Cure, The West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band, The Dandy Warhols, The Jam, The Knack, The La's, The Undertones, The Shadows, Gerry & The Pacemakers, The Dakotas (band), The Kooks The Verve and The Beach Boys
 * The Independent, The Observer, The Lancet, The Sun, The Scotsman, The Stage, The Spectator, The Sunday Times (UK) The Tablet and The Wire magazine
 * The Pension Service, The Highway Code, The Photographers' Gallery, The Women's Library, The Fat Duck, The National Gallery, The Herald, The o2, The Place, The Lighthouse and The Children's Society --andreasegde (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please give some quotations in running text in reliable sources to see which if any of these have an uppercase The elsewhere than at the beginning of a line or in old-style UK headings, Where Everything Used To Be Capitalised, Even Prepoisitions In The Middle (and in UK song titles)? --Espoo (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

For example, the National Gallery does not use uppercase in running text: "The site occupied by the National Gallery...", "How can I find out if a particular painting is in the National Gallery?", "How can I find a painting's location in the National Gallery?", "Where can I look if the work I am interested in is not in the National Gallery's collection?", "What research facilities are available for the public at the National Gallery?", "Can I sketch at the National Gallery?", "Can I take photographs or use a video camera in the National Gallery?", "Where does the National Gallery advertise its vacancies?", "Could I work as a volunteer or undertake work experience at the National Gallery?", "Could I send my curriculum vitae to the National Gallery speculatively?", "If I am not a United Kingdom or European Economic Area national could I still work at the National Gallery?", and many more on this page. --Espoo (talk) 07:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

re: "incorrect capitalisation"
What is the point of your message on my talk page? I hope you're not looking to re-relaunch that old battle. Zephyrad (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My main point was to ask you to take a look at the list of sources and to please add any sources you feel are missing. I was hoping for an objective listing of sources supporting either lowercase or uppercase because it seems we then don't need to get into a lot of discussion. So far, there is a huge list of reliable sources using lowercase in running text and only very few using uppercase. The reason it became a battle last time is because the fans were able to yell longer and louder than the professionals. According to WP policy usage in professionally edited sources should determine WP usage. --Espoo (talk) 06:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I see. Well, thanks for compiling that... it might have helped, two years ago, but somehow I doubt it. I was concerned at first you might be trying to revive the debate. No sane person wants that, IMHO. Zephyrad (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm with Zephyrad. Yes, policy in professional edited sources should determine WP usage, but as you say, those who yell louder and longer win. And they will win again. I am a professional editor and holder of a graduate degree in linguistics and that didn't sway them. I fear you will lose this one unless you want to take it to a higher Wikipedia style council, if one exists... --Lukobe (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Zephyrad and Lukobe, I can understand very well that you don't want to spend more than about 1 more minute on this old problem, but by alerting the people at MOS to my summary of reliable sources (already done) and by you and others adding a short comment, we actually have a fairly good chance of getting a policy based on reliable sources, i.e. professional standards, and without any lengthy or immature discussions.

So, please honor all the time you spent on this in the past and my time spent mostly summarising those efforts by adding a short comment at WP:MOS talk that simply states what you think about my compilation of reliable sources. You may also want to add the same 2 lines at Talk:The_Beatles.

I spent a few hours arguing with people on that talk page who simply ignored the reliable sources I quoted and then even the huge list I compiled (some of whom may have been the same that outyelled you), so I can now see why it doesn't make sense to argue and discuss with them. But the massive evidence in my list and simple statements about what this shows cannot and will not be ignored by the people deciding on general policy at WP. The simple big difference is that the/The looks like something pretty unimportant even to people at MOS, and they didn't have the time and energy to read through the old endless discussions to find the evidence, but now it's in a list that can be digested easily in a few minutes.--Espoo (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Espoo, one more damned heartbeat spent on this would be a waste, as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for the effort... but I have too many other matters in my life that take precedence. (Like scratching when I itch.) Zephyrad (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Good luck, Espoo. You are on the side of the angels (verifiability, etc.), but irrationality appears to rule the day in Wikiland. The whole exercise basically turned me off being a regular editor.McTavidge (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, McTavidge. I had similar experiences before and almost stopped being an editor myself. I believe there is a fairly simple solution to this biggest problem of irrationality in WP: requiring the establishment of a similar list of reliable sources that is separate from the discussion. No matter how long or loud defenders of positions without basis in reliable sources yell, this does not affect the total and relative importance of collected reliable sources. --Espoo (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing
Please read WP:CANVAS. Notifying editors about a discussion is not a problem. Using a heading with non-neutral wording ("incorrect capitalisation") to do so is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Just a friendly reminder to avoid problems. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your heads up, but don't worry, it wasn't a violation of WP policy because "incorrect capitalisation is not a minor problem" is completely neutral as to which capitalisation is correct, especially when it links to a compilation of sources for both. In addition, my notices to participants in the old discussion did not state which capitalisation I think is the correct one and simply asked them to take a look at my list.--Espoo (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me suggest that you simply use "Capitalisation is not a minor problem" or "Capitalisation: the Beatles or The Beatles". Then there is no question about its neutrality. Ward3001 (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't canvassed; I wonder why? :)--andreasegde (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why should I tell you on the 8th about a discussion that you'd already participated in on the 6th? --Espoo (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because you were too busy going through the names that disagreed with "The" on the policy page, perhaps? (Even non-active participants, BTW). Only a thought, you understand... :)--andreasegde (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I contacted members of the old discussion that showed they were interested in honoring WP's core policy of following usage in reliable, professionally edited secondary sources. These were people whose work, i.e. words and links to sources I used in compiling the list. And I only contacted some of them. --Espoo (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
Do NOT strike through my comments again, as it makes it look as if I did it personally, which I did NOT. The real Straw Poll is where I indicated. It is a talk page, and NOT an article. --andreasegde (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I understand that you would like to convince everyone that your proposal is correct, but do not resort to vandal tactics. Having TWO polls is confusing and silly.--andreasegde (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel it's silly, but I explained the difference between the two. And I'm sorry you felt I was vandalising by striking out your words, but you must admit your words made it impossible to find the poll directions. --Espoo (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I directed users to Dendodge's Straw Poll. One of your supporters (Croctotheface) has already signed his name on the poll above, but not below. You should tell him/her to put it lower down on the lowercase list (which is nothing short of magnanimous on my part, I'm sure you'll agree :)) Let's keep it simple, no matter what the outcome is. :)--andreasegde (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)