Talk:Kshmr

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: not moved. Both sides have interpreted

• Kshmr → KSHMR
• Kshmr discography → KSHMR discography

– Not a case of stylization since all sources spell it KSHMR and not Kshmr. Using the latter would be a form of inventing the title since it's never been used by reliable sources.

• Support, generally I have never seen a source that writes Ksmhr, and the artist is always recognised by his name in caps. I wouldn't exactly call this a stylisation, since KSHMR is his professional name, and it's not like something you can alternate between 'Kshmr' and 'KSHMR' in formal discussions where stylisation doesn't apply (like the LMFAO page, they never go by Lmfao). aNode (discuss) 16:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not an acronym, unlike LMFAO, just a stylism for Kashmir (DJ). In ictu oculi (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Your opinion is not policy-based. Why would you say KSHMR is a stylization for Kashmir? They're both completely unrelated. There is no policy to support your opinion.

  WP:COMMONNAME states that "when deciding how to format a trademark, editors should examine styles already in use by independent sources...Do not invent new styles that are not used by independent sources" and "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used," making KSHMR the most appropriate option since it is used in all sources and Kshmr is an invented style. ​ —Z0 (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

  ]

MOS:CAPSACRS isn't my opinion. Kashmir is this DJs stagename, he's writing it without vowels. It isn't an acronym. There for we don't capitalize. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The MOS section is irrelevant to this discussion since it applies only to acronyms which KSHMR is not. KSHMR is just one word, it's not related to Kashmir or any other dictionary word that is similarly spelled. There is no evidence that the all-caps is a form of stylization and policy indicates it doesn't matter if it is since it is the form used in all sources, making the other form an invented style which is against policy. ​ —Z0 (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant in that this is not an acronym, therefore it isn't in caps. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing says non-acronyms cannot be in caps. » Z0 | talk 15:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually,

MOS:CAPS says that as do pretty much all other style guides ever written. You frankly just have no idea what you're talking about, sorry.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

KSHMR is a proper name which is exempt from MOS:CAPS. » Z0 | talk 11:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It absolutely, positively is "marketing caps" stylization. This is not an acronym, it's a cutesy respelling of "Kashmir", given in all-caps to stand out in marketing material, just like SONY.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  What evidence do you have to prove your claim and what makes you think a MOS suggestion should be followed more than a policy? Absolutely absurd. ​ » Z0 | talk 07:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Can't prove a negative. You prove Kshmr is an acronym. If it's not one, then

  not a style policy, never has been, never will be one. It says nothing whatsoever about letter case or other stylization. It's the policy that tells use the proper name of the article is "Kshmr" (in one stylization or another, controlled by MoS), not "Kashmir" or "Niles Hollowell-Dhar" or "Yojimbo Doodah" or "Third Street Bridge" or "Republic of Malawi". You do not even understand the policies you are thumping like a bible and preaching about.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  You have no evidence that KSHMR is a stylization. There is nothing in the MOS that says non-acronyms cannot be in caps and

  WP:AT states that "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark". There you have it, explicitly written in policy. ​ » Z0 | talk 17:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  "You have no evidence that KSHMR is a stylization" isn't even a rational comment. ENGLISH IS NOT WRITTEN IN ALL-CAPS LIKE THIS EXCEPT FOR TWO REASONS: when it's an acronym and when it's a stylization to SCREAM AT THE READER AND GET ATTENTION. It is not WP's job to help commercial entities with their marketing efforts. We have clear policies and guidelines and will follow them. The common name is Kshmr (in form or another), not Niles Hollowell-Dhar. COMMONNAME is not a style policy. The style guidelines tell us at

  MOS:TM in the first place, because no one but them is ever likely to think it's appropriate to write Alien³, ToysЯUs, ebay, or macy^★s. Only overly beholden publishers do that kind of crap.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  (1) MOS:TM is not for article titles but for writing the content in an article.

  (2) COMMONNAME says to follow the name and style used in majority of reliable sources.

  (3) MOS:CAPS is the same as #1

  (4) KSHMR is American, making US sources preferable.

  (5) The Indian sources were published after the Wikipedia article changed its name (they could have referred to it before spelling it that way?!)

  (6) Either way, KSHMR is still the most common spelling in independent sources.

  (7) The current spelling is against Wikipedia's core article titling policy because it may be unrecognizable in lowercase.

  (8)

  WP:AT is the policy for article titles so it should be used and not MOS which is not about article titles. ​ » Z0 | talk 11:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Honestly, you are not competent yet to be participating in RMs like this, because you do not understand WP policy and how it works. Your assumptions about what MoS applies to are simply wrong, as is your belief that COMMONNAME is a style policy, your understanding of what "recognizable" means, etc. Sorry.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Your comment is just an ad hominem. I believe my points are correct and I've looked at many of the sections at MOS but found nothing that explicitly state all-caps cannot be used for a non-acronym in an article title. I'm referring to the

  WP:AT policy in general, not the COMMONNAME section. The policy states very clearly that styling is allowed if its usage is the most common in independent sources. MOS is not something editors have to follow. As the other editor below said, it's just there in cases of uncertainty. ​ » Z0 | talk 17:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The fact that you continue to "believe" you are correct when someone with may more experience at you says otherwise is indicative of the problem here. It's a personality problem, not a titles or policy problem. That's not ad hominem, it's simple observation. It would be an ad hominem if I was attempting to dismiss a legitimate position on basis of an extraneous point, like "you are wrong because you're German", or "you are wrong because you're Jewish", or "you are wrong because you have 14 misdemeanor convictions". Failure to understand the policies you are citing is not extraneous but central to the matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  How would you interpret the following from

  WP:AT? Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. MOS defers to AT because the latter is a specific policy for deciding the title of an article. On the MOS page it is written that it should be "treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply," implying it is not the ultimatum in deciding the article title. Calling me incompetent when I have pointed out my reasoning is just an ad hominem attack, you're basically saying I'm incompetent because you do not agree with my points. I do understand how WP policies work and I've been around long enough to have a fair understanding of the maintenance area here. » Z0 | talk 06:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  That policy section is specifically about commercial trademarks (e.g. iPod, eBay). It is not about stage names. If this were about an operating system or a packaged brand of frozen food named "Kshmr" that was more often rendered "KSHMR", you might have a point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Stage names are also trademarks.

  WP:TRADEMARK - "Trademarks include words...used by...individuals to identify themselves." The editor whose username is Z0 00:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Support Obviously. Wikipedia should not be inventing unused names for pages. It makes the encyclopedia lose a lot of authority if it uses invented names unused by the overwhelming majority for of the respected and reliable sources in the field. Fortunately, our guidelines allow for
  Gza, for example, until logic won the day...--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The main purpose of the manual of style in general is to provide a consistent and understandable writing style throughout the encyclopedia, not to push through changes that are not necessarily logical on a case by case basis. I think issues like this come up when we try to do things like apply a one-size-fits-all method to determining guideline applications. There are cases when following certain guidelines to the letter makes sense, such as with articles with stylized NaMeS LIKe THIs and no clear indication of an official name, where reliable sources like the New York Times will choose a more standard name for readability and style issues. There are other times where a book may have a name in all caps like BOB GOES TO THE STORE and where there is not enough clear reliable sourcing to indicate the correct official capitalization -- in that case turning to the manual of style guidelines is best. But basically, to sum it up, the current title is overwhelmingly preferred by the policy of using the most common name, and the manual of style specifically encourages editor discretion and discourages using invented names. 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 overwhelming majority of reliable sources, including books, newspapers, and websites, as well as is the generally common name is fairly absurd.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia should not be inventing unused names": Has nothing to do with this case, since the lower-case version is clearly in use: [4], [5], [6], etc. It's not the style preferred by US entertainment journalists, but WP isn't American entertainment journalism, is it? We have an explicit policy that says it's not and that we don't write in news style (

WP:NDESC. While that doesn't have anything to do with this particular discussion, you should certainly be aware of it in detail if you're going to participate in RMs in the future.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Still pretty embarrassing for us to have it at the incorrect name. That a few minor sources use the wrong wording and pretty much all use the correct one doesn't really change this. I at least thank god we moved GZA so we didn't look as out of touch and unreliable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose—There's a lot of fog in some of the support comments above. The winner is User:Z0/fw, who utters this weird incantation: "KSHMR is a proper name which is exempt from MOS:CAPS." In this case, the all-caps appears to be an invention of editors who are either trying to boost their favourite pet, or being just careless. Per User:In ictu oculi and  User:SMcCandlish. Tony (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, nothing at MOS:CAPS or MOS:TM suggests proper names are exempt. Otherwise we would immediately move

  SONY to mimic their logo. Not gonna happen.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Oppose – not an acronym, just an attention-grabbing stylization. The current version is common enough in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Doesn't have to be an acronym and nothing states stylization cannot be used in a title. KSHMR is policy-based as majority of sources use it and "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark" (

  WP:AT). There are about 2-3 sources that use Kshmr whereas about 100 that use KSHMR so no, the current version is not common enough in sources. ​

  The closer should take note that these opposes are not based on policy, which is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines. The editor whose username is Z0 17:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The proposed name isn't even an accurate stylisation. This is exactly the sort of unnecessary complicating of article names that the policy is designed to avoid. The existing name is well attested in sources. Redirects from other stylisations should exist and do. Andrewa (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2018 (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.