Talk:International standard waltz

Requested move 5 June 2018

Waltz (International Standard) → Waltz (international) ? – This "(International Standard)" thing isn't a proper parenthetic disambiguation, in being against WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, in failing WP:CONCISE, and in the parenthetical matter not being a disambiguator, but part of a longer phrase, "international standard waltz" which is actually more commonly "international-style waltz". However, a thread at Talk:Glossary of partner dance terms suggests that this is just an Americanism. So, any of this probably fails WP:COMMONNAME or has some other issue. I thought the best approach might be the simple, neutral WP:NPOVTITLE "Waltz (standardized)". But there's also American-style, apparently, and it's also standardized. I don't really know enough about the subject to be certain of anything other than that the current title is crap. Waltz (international) seems reasonable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC); revised: 03:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 04:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support – a reasonable disambiguator for a generic term. Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm inclined to leave it where it is; "Waltz" is a term of art in a sport/competition/style/whatever named International Standard (dance). The current title is WP:RECOGNIZABLE for dance enthusiasts and at least indicates (by means of capitalization) that it's a specialized term for all the others; the proposed one does neither. I kind of sympathize with SMcCandlish's beef with over-capitalization of jargon terms, but here we are deep in the gray area. I'm open to discussion whether the disambiguator should be (International Standard), (international standard), (International Style) or (international style), but shortening it further than that would impede recognizability. Compare defender (association football) or The Immortals (rugby league). No such user (talk) 11:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  Re: '"Waltz" is a term of art in a sport/competition/style/whatever' ... and WP does not care and never will care. We do not capitalize terms from game, sports, or other forms of competition. We just re-confirmed this in a recent RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 26#RfC: Capitalisation of traditional game/sports terminology. The question here is not "Can I get a capital W and a capital this and a capital that?"; it is "What is the best lower-case, normal, parenthetic disambiguator to use?".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  I'm willing to concede (international standard) or, perhaps a bit clearer, (international style) as the disambiguator. (I can't really make heads and tails of the terminology). I wish some of dance connoisseurs weighed in. No such user (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Waltz (international style) works for me as a compromise, [see below – this may be a different term] and would seem to be consistent with the details in the glossary article ("international style" and "American style" seem to be stock-phrase dance jargon). It's not maximally WP:CONCISE, but arguably more WP:PRECISE and possibly more WP:RECOGNIZABLE for people familiar with the topic already.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Note: started to close this RM and, when I wrote the close rationale, I could not make it not sound like a !supervote, so I decided to join in the discussion instead. Apparently the actual name of this article, "Waltz", is okay, and it is only the qualifier, "International Standard", that is in question. As we read in the glossary, the terms "International Standard" and "International Style" (two different things by the way), as well as "American Style", "American Smooth", and so on, are proper names. In other words, if someone were to write an article about dance's International Standard, they would never title it "International standard", because it is a proper name. So just as we wouldn't find International house of pancakes an acceptable substitute for International House of Pancakes, "International Standard" should remain a capitalized, proper-noun-phrase disambiguator.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  20:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dance have been asked for their input.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  20:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - "international standard" is a subset of "international style" covering the standard dances (of which waltz is a part of) vs "international latin". So I think it is appropriate to leave the two word phrasing. I am not sure about the capitalization. DancerEE (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • If there are RS that confirm it as a consistently two-word phrase, I'd be fine with International standard waltz. But Waltz (international standard) isn't how we do titles. If what you're saying's correct, that's not a disambiguator at all; rather "international standard waltz" is a term of art that someone has turned backwards and inserted parentheses into – a.k.a. what 'pedians call a "made-up name".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • That sounds like it would be good. Its hard to find RS for a lot of dance things though, I will look for one when I have time. DancerEE (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• Why are the "I" and the "S" capped? Tony (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

  Because dance editors in the 2000s capitalized virtually every dance-related term, in titles and mostly even in running prose. It's a real mess. Most of the ballroom stuff is cleaned up now, as to titles, and I worked through the text of most of the waltz-related articles, and some tango ones, but it's just a huge pile.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)