Talk:Neu!

Problems with "NEU!" instead of "Neu!"

(Since the question may popup again in the future, let's do this in full.) This article had inconsistent use of both "Neu!" and "NEU!". Some days ago I restructured it a bit, and BTW enforced consistent spelling with "Neu!" everywhere. Then User:Feline1 changed them all to "NEU!" with summary "it's NEU! - show me one NEU! record sleeve which disagrees! :)" (diff). I see several problems with this:

1. If the argument about album covers was intended seriously... marketing and cover design doesn't mean squat here, and their own sleeves don't make us talk about KRAFTWERK or TANGERINE DREAM either. If the smiley indicates a joke, then we don't have an actual reason provided for the changes.
2. Neu! isn't an acronym, I see no reason to capitalize it in an encyclopedic article. Also, shouting in all-caps for a mere noun (NEU! or NEW! or NOUVEAU!) makes the article look fanboyish.
3. A Google search for [ "neu is" OR "neu was" Rother Dinger ] shows exclusive use of "Neu!", including a Guardian article with quotes from the band [1]. (Note: I'll include this nice page later in the links ;-)
4. The spelling "NEU!" inside the article is now inconsistent with its name in the URL, which breaks a basic Wikipedia rule. People wanting to link here will either have to talk about [[Neu!]] (directing puzzled readers to a page talking about NEU! instead), or would have the unnecessary burden of talking about [[Neu!|NEU!]].
5. All albums links are now broken, because NEU! 2 isn't the same as Neu! 2. (You really should Preview the page and check for red links after link edits.)

Currently, I think it should be reverted to "Neu!" -- in which case I'm ready to do the task (either reverting and merging subsequent changes, or search-and-replacing inside the current version).

Important: should some valid reason and/or consensus be found for "NEU!" instead, then the work isn't even half-done yet, since it would also mandate: having the intro explaining/justifying the all-caps - moving (renaming) all articles (this one and all albums) to the NEU! spelling too, and editing their content too (URL must match spelling in article, for consistency as well as for wikilinks) - establishing redirect pages for all the Neu! variant spellings - edit to all-caps as much as possible of any other article currently spelling and linking to any of the "Neu!" pages/albums (for consistency and to avoid redirects). In other words, you can't just change it in the article, and you have some more required wiki-work if there are reasons to switch to "NEU!".

Comments or suggestions pro/con, before either reverting to Neu! or processing a full name change?

←^#6  _talk 17:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Look, the name of the band is NEU! It's Dinger's Pop Art slogan, intended to be like an advert, deliberate spelt in block capitals and with an explanation mark. He did the art work, he came up with the name - not some record company marketing department (you seriously think Brain records in 1971 had *any* "departments" in it?! It was just a couple of German hippies in Berlin!) I'm sorry the capitalisation broke a few links - that is easily corrected - I just didn't have the time to do it the other day - and you could have easily done it yourself several times over in the time it took to type all this Talk page! Just repair the links using the square brackets and vertical bar syntax. (the name of the artical/URL itself is WRONG of course, since it uses lower case! but that's not so easy to fix) --feline1 20:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

---

An encyclopedia respects normal typographic standards, not the marketing branding of authors (even though it can be mentionned once in the lead section, as an additional fact). Caps can't be avoided for an initialism such as UB40 or a phonetic such as INXS – but they are dropped in all other instances:

1. for a band such as Dio – because it's a mere surname, even though both logo and fanboys usually spell "DIO";
2. or for Time (magazine) which states "Time (officially capitalized TIME)" – it's a word, even though they've branded themselves "TIME" for decades.

In addition to such clear examples, CAPS policy is detailled in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms).

And, even though it's outside of Wikipedia's policies, mention can be made that Neu!'s own label's website [2] or the All Music guide [3] list them as "Neu!".

I'm afraid you failed to provide an argument justifying to override the policy on naming that applies to everything else, so I'm going to revert to "Neu!" (and add a mention about the logo's caps, like Time does). Please also see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution before warring ;-)

←^#6  _talk 16:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

---

To me your actions are just philistine. Cannot you understand that the spelling of "NEU!" in block capitals and with an exclamation mark is an artistic statement, and one which should be respected? It matters not one whit what mistakes silly sub-editors of managazines or websites have made in the past. The only opinion of relevance is that of the artist and author, namely Klaus Dinger. I can dredge up some citation where he explains the pop-art signifigance of the spelling if you insist. If you are not interested in Dinger's artistic intentions, why are you writing encyclopedia articles about him? At the very least, if the article is sufficiently perverse to insist of using lowercase throughout (surely to god you are not going to remove the exclamation mark as well, despite that being typographically wrong?) it should at least contain a note that the band referred to themselves as "NEU!" and the pop-art significance of this, but that this article is not using the capitalization for reasons of being ahine. Failing that, why bother to call them "Neu!" at all. Why not "Cecil"? Or "Slartibartfast"? Since you care not one whit about what it is they call themselves...--feline1 18:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, consult http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity The policy stated there is that articles should refer to groups by the name the group use to talk about themselves. The name NEU! use is "NEU!", not "Neu!", "neu", "ning-ning-ning" nor "knickers". Their use of "NEU!" is not arbitrary - it has a meaning. The article should explain that meaning to the reader, not obliterate through pedantry and ignorance.--feline1 18:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

---

1. Please avoid namecalling, especially when you could yourself be labelled ignorant/philistine for always typing your answers at the top of page/section instead of below the questions, in the proper causal order used for discussion on all Talk pages.
2. Never addressing specific, numbered objections, and instead using blanket rants, is usually interpreted as meaning you don't have real points.
3. I'm afraid the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity is irrelevant here: first, it is not concerned with musical groups, but human/ethnic groups (cultural identity), meaning for instance to prefer Inuit to Eskimo. Second, even if trying to shoehorn this to musical groups, it would only refer to such things as writing "Pink Floyd" instead of "The Pink Floyd" (original article abandonned by the band).
4. About "it should at least contain a note that the band referred to themselves as "NEU!"", erm, that's precisely what I mentionned about Time, announced in my pre-edit answer, and what I did in the first sentence of the lead section of the article.
5. As for the encyclopedic aspect of all-caps "NEU!", I agree with you, but I'd rather invite you to contribute a paragraph at the beginning of the History section, explaining the band's creation, why the name was choosen, why those caps, and the statement behind the logo. It would be much more useful to the reader than just writing "NEU!" throughout.

←^#6  _talk 18:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's what I think: I wrote most of the damn article in the first place. You on the other hand contribute very little except bowel-shatteringly tedious pedantry and supersillyarse "I'm afraid you haven't answered my points" meta-blether when (a) I have answered your points (b) your points are of such deranged minutiae-befuddled tedium I'm amazed I'm bothering to engage with you in the first place. I have not really the time to counteract your beaurocratic vandalism, so if your Asperagers dictates that you inflict your typographic sabotage on the article, then please would YOU write an extra paragraph explaining the signifigance of the literal "NEU!"... unless of course, you can't, because you still don't even understand the nuances it signifies - in which case, I say again - leave the bloody thing alone! love & hugs, --feline1 20:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe it, you've even vandalized my note at the top of the article that explained your own vandalism! LOL. Yes, the Wikipedia manual of style advises against self-reffering to wikipedia, and gives a few reasons why - (a) it causes self-recursive links which would cause the Interweb to implode into a black hole - WELL HEY, I DIDN'T MAKE IT A LINK SO THERE WAS NO PROBLEM THERE and (b) it would make re-using the content elsewhere ahine.... but this cannot apply here as this issue is specifically due to a WIKIPEDIA typographic convention, which might not apply if the content was reused anywhere. You are once again altering matters of factual content with your overzealous editing and adherance to style, which defeats the whole purpose of style, which is to be transparent and make the factual content easier to read. aHEIN, in fact.--feline1 08:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mention of the so-called "Neu! 3"

While I'm at it, I offer my reason for another minor gripe with this edit, about which I won't fight/revert, but that I think should be considered (and not just here):

The discog entry ''[[Neu! '75]]'' (Brain Records) - studio album, sometimes aka ''Neu! 3'' <!-- makes it googlable --> has seen my note about the aka deleted. When an alternative and/or incorrect usage exists, I think valuable to mention it, if only because it's informative to assert that it exists but is incorrect, and also because it'll help some people find it via search engines.

←^#6  _talk 17:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

---

RE: "NEU! 3", there is simply no such album! I don't see it the business of an encyclopedia to perpetuate stupid typos! --feline1 20:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

About "out of production" vs. "deleted"

While I'm at it, I offer my reason for another minor gripe with this edit, about which I won't fight/revert, but that I think should be considered (and not just here):

The albums that "are currently out of production." have been edited to "are currently deleted.": 'deleted' is industry jargon, and actually very confusing to the uninitiated ("Deleted? Is that censored? Forbidden? Did the artist vowed to never reissue it??") -- I've already seen this cause troubles on another band page, which had to change it back to "out of production".

←^#6  _talk 17:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

---

RE: "out of production" vs. "deleted" - the latter phrase is technically correct and appropriate - there's no real need to brand it jargon - where does jargon end and specialist vocabulary begin? :) The phrase "out of production" is not only never used in this context, it's plain misleading because "production" in music is something quite different to the pressing/manufacturing of discs, and even if it referring to producing the discs in a pressing plant, that's a silly way to describe it because albums get pressed once, in huge batches, they don't stay "in production" in pressing plants over large periods of time. --feline1 20:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The term in/out of production also tends to imply a continuous stream of manufacturing output, which also isn't appropriate for all but perennial best-sellers, since published material (books, vinyl, CDs) are normally produced in batches and warehoused. Most normal people know or can guess what deleted means in this context anyway (not sure how many normal people spend much time here though). Ricadus (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You guys have way too much time!

Like I said, you guys have way too much time, you list all the reasons that a word will be all caps. Just capitalize the word every time it is used. They use '!' after the word 'Neu!' looks stupid. If you listen to their albums and look at the covers 'Neu!' is just stupid. 'NEU!' fits better. They wouldn't have just made a statement, they made an extreme statement. And to add to it, they spelled it the same way (with the capitalizations) every time it appears in the album jacket. Kraftwerk is not always spelled in all caps, I've seen it in the album jackets in a few places. NEU! always is. The '!' just looks stupid after 'Neu'. NEU! was making a statement about Krautrock and not just themselves. Krautrock wasn't just New or even New! it was NEW!. Krautrock was attempting to do what no one else had before and they did it and modern music has those geniuses to thank for hat they did. What about e. e. cummings? He went and had his name legally changed to lowercase spelling (e. e. cummings instead of E. E. Cummings). I've seen school text books, internet sites, and even printed books for sale at normal book stores that print it with the lowercases. The capitalization of a word can be incorrect sometimes. If the government find capitalizations important enough to allow people to specify them as the correct spelling of their name, then just recognizing that NEU! is correct and then changing it to Neu! for the article (for no good reason at all) shouldn't be done. If I wrote "i want to go to chicago because it is where abraham lincoln Was born and i Think that is Cool." Wouldn't somone correct it? It's grammer. All of you guys have way too much time. Copy/Paste 'NEU!' over 'Neu!' be done with it and quite worrying about it. They wanted to make a statement, let's alow them to make that STATEMENT!

Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth 04:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. This article should be moved to New (band). -88.110.130.171 (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.236.178 (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. The band is called "Neu!", not "Neu" and surely not "New". If you do so, the Germans will move "Apple Inc." to "Apfel AG" or "Fox Broadcasting Company" to "Fuchs Rundfunkanstalt"!!! Think about that!!! 85.180.100.25 (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Neu!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007231145/http://www.gawl.de/Dingerland/About/neu.html to http://www.gawl.de/Dingerland/About/neu.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080614060913/http://www.thequietus.com/2008/05/listening-in-michael-rother-of-harmonia-neu-and-kraftwerk-podcast/ to http://www.thequietus.com/2008/05/listening-in-michael-rother-of-harmonia-neu-and-kraftwerk-podcast/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)