Jump to content

Talk:Estoile Naiant

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

Requested move 30 July 2024

[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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– Per MOS:TMRULES, "When a name is almost never written except in a particular stylized form, use that form on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not beholden to the WP:OFFICIAL NAME, but by way of introduction, the title of both albums are 'officially' rendered in all caps as we can see on Bleep [1], the webstore of the label the artist is signed to. We can also refer to Warp Records Bandcamp for EOLIAN INSTATE and ESTOILE NAIANT. The question is, how consistent have sources been in observing this official rendering?

  • Album reviews or other third party write-ups about ESTOILE NAIANT which observe the all caps stylization in both title and body of their article (from those reviews aggregated to Metacritic and have links available):
Dusted Magazine, exclaim.ca, Pitchfork, Sputnikmusic, The Line of Best Fit, Tiny Mix Tapes, MusicOMH, ResidentAdvisor
  • Album reviews or other third party write-ups about ESTOILE NAIANT which does not observe all caps stylization in either title or body of the article:
Allmusic (Observed in write-up, but not in title.) I'll note as an aside that Metacritic itself does not consistently observe the stylization, and sometimes in a manner that contradicts the reviews they're citing. Compare, for example, that on their aggregate page they paraphrase Exclaim as saying Estoile Naiant works as a satisfying continuation of patten's work, albeit one that moves his sound in a sideways direction. but Exclaim itself discussed the album as ESTOILE NAIANT in both title and in body of their review.
  • Album review or other third party write-ups about EOLIAN INSTATE which observe the all caps stylization in both title and body of their article: ResidentAdvisor, Pitchfork (n.b. as "EOLIAN INSTATE EP"). I cannot find or load a respective Metacritic page for EOLIAN INSTATE so here have simply gone off what I could find in results.
  • Peripheral mention of EOLIAN INSTATE which observes the all caps stylization: Pitchfork again, discussing as EOLIAN INSTATE when reviewing a track from GLAQJO XAACSSO; The Line of Best Fit, discussing Aviary from the then-upcoming EOLIAN INSTATE; FACT Magazine, announcing patten's signing to Warp and their debut EP as EOLIAN INSTATE; Dazed as Now, after a two year recording silence, he's signed to Warp and back with the brain-meltingly good five-track EOLIAN INSTATE EP. [emphasis not mine]; Juno in both title and in body (News now arrives that patten has signed to UK institution Warp, with the first fruits of the new union being a five-track EP entitled EOLIAN INSTATE.).

I think it might also be constructive to consider – if the name is almost never written except in a particular stylized form, we might expect that to still be the case even on third-party streaming services and/or music stores, even if it has been a non-trivial period of time since the works were released;

I have had limited success finding examples where the particular stylized form(s) are not observed. Discogs has ESTOILE NAIANT, but also EOLIAN INSTATE. However, per WP:DISCOGS, it not a reliable source so it can inform the discussion only so much. Having made the case the names of the works are almost never written except in a particular stylized form, I assert the articles are obliged to be moved per MOS:TMRULES. 122141510 (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, per MOS:TM, MOS:CAPS (especially MOS:ALLCAPS, and MOS:ABBR. These are not acronyms/initialisms, and this is purely over-capitalization for marketing purposes, just like a zillion cases before this. The very reason that we have MOS:TM is "don't over-capitalize or employ other stylistic shenanigans to mimic logos, trademarks, and other marketing". We have long-standing guidelines specifically against this. The almost never written except in a particular stylized form standard is met when there is significant coverage across a bunch of independent English-language reliable sources and they are mutually consistent. But these albums have virtually no coverage of any kind that is independent, and the tiny amount there is (aside from entries in discography databases and other tertiary-source junk) is all in a tiny handful of niche entertainment-news blogs, which probably do not qualify as a reliable, nor as independent because they are entirely dependent for their survival on advertising revenue from entertainment-industry companies that are very insistent about their marketing stylizations. (Worse, the sources for both albums are mostly the same couple of articles; i.e., these two albums are not sustainably separate encyclopedia topics and should merge in summary form into the artist article, or be taken to WP:AFD on WP:N grounds, in which case the result will be to merge summaries of them into the artist article.) In short, this is really a conflict between Wikipedia style and "always precisely mimic trademarks to keep advertisers happy" style, and we know which one applies on Wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is purely over-capitalization for marketing purposes Or it's artistic expression? Insofar as your additional criteria about interpreting MOSTM as "standard is met when there is significant coverage across a bunch of independent English-language reliable sources", that isn't actually in MOSTM. You've just tacked that on. 122141510 (talk) 05:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The band or album name is not the art, the expression; it's an identifying label (in this case unnecessarily stylized for marketing purposes like a zillion other over-capitalized product logos, game titles, and other trademarks), which is put on the package containing the expression as a marketing tool. By your reasoning, every trademark of every kind (at least if any "expression" of any sort were involved, and when could it not be?) would have to be precisely stylistically mimicked by Wikipedia. The community has already firmly decided long ago that is a terrible idea and has a guideline specifically against doing it. If you want to suggest changing that guideline, the place to do that is WT:MOSTM, but I see that you've already opened a WP:FORUMSHOP about this at Village Pump. Spamming multiple venues with the same proposal until you get what you desire is not how things are done here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mischaracterizing my posts as spamming even after I've clarified my intention is obnoxious and inherently bad faith. If you cannot read, that's a personal issue to resolve offline, not one to brandish into a weapon against me. 122141510 (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC) As well, if you'd actually taken a look at WT:MOSTM, you'd see there's a notice of discussion that links to a conversation started by me. Nothing untoward is going on. Is there some material concern you've raised here, or are you just throwing anything at the wall and hoping it sticks? Rubbish. 122141510 (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As well, By your reasoning, every trademark of every kind (at least if any "expression" of any sort were involved, and when could it not be?) would have to be precisely stylistically mimicked by Wikipedia. is not automatically true. As I said in my rationale to move, The question is, how consistent have sources been in observing this official rendering? My logic does not say what you are asserting it does. You haven't spoken to the fact you seem to have tacked on this "standard is met when there is significant coverage across a bunch of independent English-language reliable sources" criteria. I won't argue against it entirely but you're implicitly asserting this standard is not met here, without elaborating. What is a "bunch"? Did the rationale to move not provide a "bunch" of sources across independent English-language reliable sources? Are any of the source provided not reliable? etc. 122141510 (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2024 (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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Estoile_Naiant&oldid=1258719990"