Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() | On 30 July 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Estoile Naiant to ESTOILE NAIANT. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
– 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 , 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?
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.
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)
almost never written except in a particular stylized formstandard 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)
this is purely over-capitalization for marketing purposesOr 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)
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)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.