Talk:Nothing but the Truth (1941 film)

Requested move 12 September 2015

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: MOVED - as per consensus on policy application Tiggerjay (talk) Tiggerjay (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

---

(non-admin closure)

• Nothing But the Truth (1941 film) → Nothing but the Truth (1941 film)
• None But Lucifer → None but Lucifer
• I Ain't Got Nothin' But the Blues → I Ain't Got Nothin' but the Blues
• Nothing But the Best (film) → Nothing but the Best (film)

– Per MOS:CT, WP:NCCAPS, WP:Naming conventions (music)#Capitalization, and comments by Darkday ("What is the point of a style guide if it's not used? If it were used invariably, then we would at least have consistency within Wikipedia") and Jenks24 ("The whole point of having a house style for capitalisation is that we apply it for consistency across the project") at Talk:Nuttin' but Love#Requested move 23 August 2015. To me, the case for "but" seems especially strong (e.g., relative to "like", "upon", and "over"), since it is only three letters long. None of these articles have had prior RM discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, all the names of these artworks capitalize 'But', as do their listings at places like IMBD. Since when did Wikipedia decided to decapitalize 'But' in the names of works of art? That's probably taking the caps thing one-too-far (But...I mean 'but'... maybe not). Anyway, in the case of this request, proper name and common name would leave them capitalized. Randy Kryn 19:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • These articles are all actually pretty thinly sourced, so we don't really necessarily know what capitalization styling is usually used to refer to them. I Ain't Got Nothin' But the Blues cites two sources – one uses all caps and the other uses lowercase "but". The other three cite only offline or low quality sources. IMDB, for example, is a rather poor quality source – see, for example, Template:Film IMDb refimprove. AllMovie and TCM seem no better, and these database-style sources may have style guides of their own that tell them to just render "but" with uppercase. None But Lucifer doesn't cite any online sources at all (other than a copy of the book itself). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose - Moving a title away from it's correct name is obviously not logical. It seems very strange to me that, when our most reliable sources, including industry publications, uses what we know with certainty is the correct use of a name, that we would intentionally choose what we know not to be correct. The proposed title is overwhelmingly preferred by the policy of using the most common name, and the manual of style specifically encourages editor discretion. The MOS is great for our writing style and when the official or common name might be unknown, but to argue that it should be used to take an official name with a specifically chosen title that is used by the absolutely overwhelming majority of reliable sources, including books, newspapers, and websites, as well as is the generally common name is fairly absurd. Our title guidelines and policies are unfortunately somewhat murky. But, what it comes down to can be gleaned from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), which states that "an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility". If Spin is using a style, and Rolling Stone or the books written that discuss the song or just the bulk of reliable sourcing in general largely use the official title, is it really common sense for us to be saying we shouldn't be following the sources here in order to somehow adhere to conventions and gain credibility? Wikipedia is a unique construct in that our work is so clearly tied and based off of reliable sourcing about the subject -- making us stand out and go against the grain here just doesn't make much sense.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Using a style guide ensures internal consistency. Right now, the preposition "but" is lowercased in some article titles, and capitalized in others, sometimes even for identical titles: Nothing But the Truth (1941 film), Nothing but the Truth (2008 American film). Wikipedia has a house style that clearly states that the preposition "but" should be lowercased, and I think that style guide should be applied, otherwise it would be pointless. Darkday (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with the nom and Darkday, unsurprisingly. If we are not going to follow our style guide we may as well do away with it. For people who generally oppose these types of moves (and I'm honestly not having a go at them, they genuinely do believe it's in the best interests of the project), your time would surely be much better spent actually discussing the general rule at the relevant guideline talk page than battling these RMs out one-by-one and creating strange inconsistencies. Jenks24 (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• Note to nominator -- Without assuming bad faith, I would advise the nominator to avoid pinging selected editors who agree with their view to avoid any intended or unintended canvassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaksar (talk • contribs) 19:18, 13 September 2015‎ (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment. It wasn't intended as canvassing, but I can now see how it could have been interpreted that way. To balance it out, I hereby ping the two remaining people who were involved in that previous RM who seemed to have the most opposite opinion that haven't yet shown up here: GregKaye and Davey2010. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Having known solid contributions to a great sequence of well reasoned RMs by BarrelProof I don't think there is any livelihood or prior sign of intentional canvassing or that pings made with best intention for the development of quality encyclopedic content. GregKaye 08:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Your expression of confidence in my motivations is appreciated. I am glad we are all here to build an encyclopedia. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proper title of a book, movie, or other work of art is defined by that on the work of art, and that includes capitalization. A style guide can certainly come into play when the proper form cannot be determined by reference to the proper authority (the work itself), as when the work itself is inconsistent in the form given. Otherwise, the work itself must remain the proper authority. BPK (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - (BarrelProof You're going to have a heart attack I think! ) - I don't believe they should be moved at all but half of these caps that Me & others are opposing are getting moved regardless so it's a waste of time opposing if they're gonna be moved anyway, But seeing as they're getting moved we may aswell be consistent - No point having a lowercase here & a caps there - There needs to be consistency. –Davey2010^Talk 04:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow – proof that life is full of surprises! —BarrelProof (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - I don't see why but should be uppercased other than mere sources that uppercase it without explaining reasons to do so. As "but" is not an adverb (e.g. "I am but a simple man.") but preposition among titles (e.g. "everyone but me"), they must abide to MOS:CT and WP:NCCAPS, which must be followed. I don't see how common sense applies; majority may not know how to treat but well in regards to titles lately. --George Ho (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
• I have already stated my opposition to the proposal (see above), but perhaps did not urge my opinion strongly enough. These are works of art, people! You don't try to make a title conform to a style guide; you go with what the artist (author) put on it. If we start monkeying with what the artist intended, where does it end? Are we to expand every purposefully employed ampersand into "and"? Are we to correct a title's grammar and turn (for example) the entry for the movie Two Weeks Notice into Two Weeks' Notice? And how about company and product names, which often use nonstandard spellings to make them look striking (and render them more easy to trademark)? Are we to correct their spellings? If these ideas sound ridiculous to you, good! They ought to. They are ridiculous. So is second-guessing capitalization in titles. Titles are not things to be massaged to conform to style guides. They are what they are—and should be left that way! BPK (talk) 05:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • If you disagree with what the Wikipedia MoS guideline says, you should probably express that opposition on the relevant Talk pages of the MoS, not here in an RM for a few individual articles. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Hmm, nope, don't gotta do that. Note that a guideline is not an absolute rule, but a suggestion or piece of advice. Were it otherwise, there would be no need for this discussion; the guideline would automatically govern, regardless of anyone's opinion. Actually, as far as I can tell the guideline doesn't seem to be cognizant there's an issue. It seems to exist in a void, as if no work of art with a title comes with existing capitalization, and it must therefore be Wikipedia's duty to provide it. Such is manifestly not the case. It defies common sense to ignore the capitalization a work comes with and replace it with one's own notion of how it should be, in defiance of the author's evident intention. Doing this is akin to original research; it's essentially saying "The author, for whatever reason, capitalized the title in such-and-such a way, but we think it should be capitalized a different way, so we're going to quietly go with our way. And not tell you." As a rule, Wikipedia is supposed to take (and report) things as they come, not silently misrepresent them. I believe the only generally accepted instance in which it is considered correct to replace the orthography of a given title with a standard orthography is when the title is in ALL CAPITALS—generally recognized as a publisher's printing convention rather than authorial intention. Interestingly, the only instance in the MoS guideline that actually acknowledges the possibility of conflict between the extant capitalization of a title and the guideline's standard appears to come down squarely in favor of the extant title. I quote: "In hyphenated terms, capitalize each part according to the applicable rule (e.g. The Out-of-Towners), unless reliable sources consistently do otherwise for the work in question (e.g. The History of Middle-earth)." BPK (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Agree with comments above... we should either follow the rules or modify them. This rather than personal opinions is what is really correct. These style niceties are not all that important, the important thing is to be consistent and not waste too much time on them, so we can all get back to improving Wikipedia in significant ways. Andrewa (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2015 (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.