Talk:It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)

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: No move. After being open nearly 6 weeks, there's insufficient support to move the article. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine) → It's the End of the World As We Know It (And I Feel Fine)
• It's the End of the World as We Know It (EP) → It's the End of the World As We Know It (EP)

– In the previous discussion at

• Oppose, see "as good as" as an example.
  © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

"As good as" is a

preposition or coordinating conjunction. Hmm... When this discussion is over, I'll do case-by-case strategy on proposals. --George Ho (talk) 09:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

OK with that but in

© Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, Tbhotch, I'll propose uppercasing "As...As" when this discussion is over. By the way, it is also a "correlative conjunction". --George Ho (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not a

© Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 00:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Here are precedents,

Live As Hippie-Punks might look incorrect; Life As We Know It is correct, but the list doesn't uppercase the rest. Argus As III treats "As" as a noun. George Ho (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I was referring to already discussed titles, or a guideline pointing it out. Also some of them are doubtful.

© Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 18:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The main title has mixed usage of "As" and "as", Tbhotch. Also, is the "part of speech" relevant to this discussion? If not, I'm at disbelief at humanity's ignorance and reliance on something that has low standards. George Ho (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose move to capitalize "as", per
  MOS:TITLES; this is a preposition. It is absolutely not an 'as X as' construction, and it is not any of the conjunction uses. See Oxford Dictionaries Online [4], "as", preposition, entry 1: "Used to refer to the function or character that someone or something has". It is not the conjunctive uses, which are "Used to indicate that something happens during the time when something else is taking place" ("as I lay dying"), "Used to indicate by comparison the way that something happens or is done" ("Do it quietly, as usual."), or "Used to add or interject a comment relating to the statement of a fact" ("As you know, it's getting late.").  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

What, SMcCandlish? Reread the definitions again. "as" conjuncts conjoins both "It's the end of the world" and "we know it." Also, "as" is used per fourth definition as a conjunction. George Ho (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...Well, the fourth definition is "Because; since"; fifth, "Even though". Probably you're right it does not fit the third, but fourth will do. Also, look at Merriam-Webster; it contains eight definitions as conjunction for "as". George Ho (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have read them very closely. "Conjuncts" (as a verb) isn't even a word. You're imagining that every word or clause that intermediates between two others is a conjunction. It's not. All prepositions serve that function, but remain prepositions. A word that is normally a preposition may also serve as a conjunction, but only when the usage is not prepositional, as in the cases Oxford outlines as conjunctions. This is why you'll rarely find this "as" capitalized, even in this exact phrase, in reference to the song, in reliable sources [5]. This is exactly a case of "Used to refer to the ... character that ... something has", and is thus prepositional. All dictionaries contain definitions of as as a conjunction, and they all contain definitions of it as a preposition. This is a prepositional use.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"conjoins", I mean. George Ho (talk) 06:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr Ho, thanks for the heads up, but I'll Oppose even though the OED doesn't pretend any use of "as" is prepositional. (All its uses are adverbial or conjunctive. An easy way to tell is that prepositions take objects and this one's followed by a phrase. All uses of "as" are formed as understood phrases, repeating the earlier construction.) The fact is that
  WP:IAR. — LlywelynII 00:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The book says read further at Wikipedia, Llywelyn. Also, it caps "the". How is the book reliable? Books and mags uppercasing "As": [6] Rolling Stone Billboard [7] [8] SPIN (hmm...) New Yorker [9] [10] [11]. George Ho (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More sources: Fox Sports Salon (does both ways) HuffPost EW Paste. George Ho (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apologies and good catch on the book, though "see Wikipedia" was part of my point: I don't disagree with

Fly like an Eagle

). The usage you're supporting here seems to be an uncommon eyesore merely for the sake of being an uncommon eyesore and, to me, the fact that you're right as a matter of MOS policy is just a reason to change the style guideline.

I was a bit taken aback by your counterexamples at first, but New York magazine ≠ the New Yorker. The rest don't look authoritative enough to best the NY Times &c. and my own belief that as is a minor word here but, if it helps at all, your sources do make me hate your proposal less and I got a subscription to the Chicago Manual to see what they said. (Not much: the general guidelines seem to leave capital as but their example page still lower-cases it. They seem to have not given it any thought.) On the other hand, maybe the OED, your Rolling Stone cite and this New York University Press text and these Google Books results (which alternate capped and uncapped "[a|A]s We Know It") will show Mr McCandlish that it isn't actually a preposition and capitalizing it isn't just a mistake of inattentive editors and prompt him to reconsider his vote. — LlywelynII 13:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit. Actually, looking through that Google Books search and your sources again ... — LlywelynII 13:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one fails to get your point, LlywelynII (at WT:CAPS and elsewhere), that you believe that the commonness of some cases of capitalized "Like", as a preposition, in some titles in some sources is meaningful. You are simply not getting what the meaning is. It is not the case that sources are especially capitalizing "like" as somehow different and special, and that MoS is defying this convention, against reliable sources. Rather, they are applying a journalism style convention of capitalizing all prepositions, including "like", of four characters or more. Wikipedia follows the more mainstream practice of capitalizing those of five characters or more; this is a compromise between journo style, and academic style, which is to never capitalize any prepositions at all, even long and uncommon ones. It simply is not true that MoS is making up arbitrary nonsense; we're following the style recommended by the most influential style guides intended for a general audience. Yes, it is a compromise between two extremes, and like all compromises it will not please everyone all the time, but it does allow us to stop arguing about something and get on with the work, which is what our style manual (like all of them) is for.

As for Oxford, as, and prepositional use, see their actively maintained dictionary at [12]. As I already demonstrated, this usage in particular is classified as prepositional, and is even a usage specifically outlined by Oxford as such: "Used to refer to the ... character that ... something has".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Very begrudging Support. I actually think the current title is correct and hate this move (as above) but it is what the MOS currently recommends and a review of the literature (above) shows it's not as uncommon as I thought, nor so uncommon that I should be pushing IAR just to get around the mistake at the Manual of Style. We can move it back if there's a consensus over there to fix the mistake. — LlywelynII 13:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unclear what you mean. The current title has a lower-case "as", and this is what is consistent with MoS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the title could just as easily be "It's The End Of The World As We Know It (And I Feel Fine)" as shown here. I find the allusion to an execrable NYT headline mindset quite disarming. This desecration of works of art in the name of an all-encompassing "Manual of Style" has to stop. I bask blissfully in the (wholly unsupported) belief that Michael Stipe neither knows nor cares what a "correlative conjunction" is, and least of all what a "coordinating conjunction" is. A choice of capital letters is part of the artistic process. Why do the rules of grammar apply to "a seemingly stream of consciousness rant with a number of diverse reference"? Sorry to sound like a Fanboy here, or like someone who has dropped one too many e's. But thanks, SMcCandlish, I never even realised that "a word that is normally a preposition may also serve as a conjunction, but only when the usage is not prepositional". At least I've leant something. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cover of the single and the back cover of the Document album on which the song appears [13] are all in ALL CAPS. There is clearly no inviolable "artistic intent" at work here, so it's not a relevant concern. I agree with you that the move is wrong, but it's wrong because the grammatical rationale for it is incorrect, so capitalizing it is against our capitalization conventions (and even the looser ones of journalism).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looser conventions of journalism?? Whatever do you mean. Lunchtime O'Booze 123 (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See related thread at

WT:MOSCAPS. Short version: Journalism, by and large, follows a loose convention of capitalizing prepositions four words or longer, but particular publishers have their own house style with regard to shorter words like "as" or "of"; some prefer to never capitalize them, some to do so when they're adverbial or conjunctive, some only when they're conjunctive, etc. In newswriting, there's no single, consistent system. What the NYT does is different from what The Guardian does, in turn different from what the AP Stylebook uses. So, it really is not possible for MoS / WP to follow journalistic style; there is no identifiable style to follow.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

So no journalists ever use those style guides that are used as the basis for WP's MoS? Or does the answer to that involve the long version. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC) p.s. where does the A in And come from?[reply]

@Martinevans123: Probably requires a semi-long answer, which is kind of off-topic, so I'll collapse it.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your careful answer. You certainly seem to know a great deal about now journalists work. It's a good job that we at Wilipedia don't have any "bosses" who are "liable to give us hell if we do something outside "canonical" house style." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do; I was a media relations professional for about a decade, as well as a tertiary news editor. No one is being given hell here; proposals to move things in incorrect ways and elsewhere proposals to change MoS to do things supportable only with

OR, are being opposed. There is no "boss" relationship, and sarcastic insinuations are not helpful.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

p.s. where does the A in And come from? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Martin: I want to hold my silence, but I can't. I don't know your disregard on part of speech. Is it for the sake of original idea of "artistry" based on mere publications? This troubles me, and the way that academics in the United States is heading troubles me more. If it happens, academics' lowering its standards to allow room for those who performed mediocrely would become a major political issue, especially in world politics. George Ho (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies, George. I had thought my edit summary might have given my satirical intentions away. Please trouble yourself no more. I was just trying to make a point. It's not the end of the world (as bouffant UK political hopefuls might wish us to have it), it's just an upper case A. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that most of your responses on this and relates pages are sarcastic commentary isn't helpful to productive discussion or to dispute resolution.

  WP:NOT#FACEBOOK. Please take this to heart. These talk pages don't exist to "score points" with snarky repartée.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Wasn't trying to "score points." Sorry to attempt irony. Thanks for the humourless scolding. I'll try and get my four letter capitals on Facebook. But please don't characterize "most of my responses on this and relates pages" as "sarcastic commentary" - I simply disagree with your meticulously constricted arguments which strike me as

  WP:OR. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  My apologies, too. I know you were sarcastic, Martin. I didn't think it's that relevant anyways. Still, rules are rules. I still don't get your opposing lowercasing "like" while opposing uppercasing "As" other than rules don't fit... three of you here. As for you, SMcCandlish, if "As" in the title is a preposition, then is "We Know It" an object or something? A preposition is a word preceding an object and "express[ing] spatial or temporal relations" or thematic relations unless dictionary says otherwise. It's not even a verb or a noun. It doesn't describe the subject or object or action of the subject or modify the word of the action (i.e. verb). Is "We Know It" an object noun or a sentence or what? George Ho (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Prepositions work in multiple ways, and English syntax is very fluid. Please do not take a junior high / middle school approach to "sentence graphs". "Where you at?" has at as preposition in it, and there is no object.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Contrary to popular belief, I'm not actually on a four-letter-capitalisation-crusade. I think the L in "Someone Like You" should be upper case because it looks better (with "You" having only three letters). I think exceptions should be made in such cases as these if local consensus can be established. At least an article could then be consistent with itself. But some editors obviously think this would be the end of MoS as we know it. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rationale we can't find any source anywhere, nor in any policy/guideline here, so, there's that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean "that's that"? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho has invited me to comment. 'As' is a subordinating conjunction in 'as we know it' (it introduces a clause, not a noun phrase) and if that means it should be capitalised, so be it. Rothorpe (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.