Talk:L'Ange de Nisida

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per detailed and well-argued nomination. The French Wikipedia main title header is indeed L'Ange de Nisida and other headers delineating proper names, such as
  L'ange noir, even though French Wikipedia's entry uses the header L'Ange noir.. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support, nothing to add to substantial reasoning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this is a classical music work, no reason why we have to capitalise French names in pseudo-English style just because that is what pop articles do to Spanish pop songs. It won't harm anyone to see the French name of a French opera written in French as
  MOS:FOREIGNTITLE is against it then the local consensus is there. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I've just checked,

  MOS:FOREIGNTITLE says nothing as far as I can see about actual foreign titles but only translated ones like Dangerous Liasons. What am I missing? Just noting also that fr.wp is all over the place. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Um,

  MOS:FOREIGNTITLE say to use the dominant spelling in English-language sources for pre-modern works with non-English names, and that spelling is L'Ange de Nisida.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Oppose – This has been discussed at length in the Opera Project. The reason for the strict sentence case boils down to two reasons, probably related: 1) there is no absolute consistency in the francophone world, despite the Académie's pronouncements; 2) at least one of the major encyclopedic works on classical music, Grove, uses this style consistently (search result for 'L'Ange de Nisida' only returns 'L'ange'). So it's only natural to follow their standard, which also has the advantage of being easy to understand and implement – that's why it's almost universally used here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  "discussed at length in the Opera Project" is rather meaningless handwaving, given

  WP:CONSISTENT policy and several guidelines, and the project has been admonished more than once to stop trying to control the content of articles across a category you claim within project scope (infoboxes, etc.). I've already demonstrated that the majority usage in English-language sources is L'Ange not L'ange, so the fact that you can find some exceptions is meaningless.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Grove is hardly 'some exception'. Point is: there is no universally agreed standard. For this particular work by an Italian composer, the strict sentence case is also used by donizetti.org: L’ange de Nisida and Bachtrack: "Donizetti's L'ange de Nisida proves to be a masterpiece". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It is exactly some exception. And yes, the point is that there is no universally agreed standard. Ergo, WP should not make a strange exception here but do what it does with all other titles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a strange exception, it is correct. Correct per French grammar, correct per Grove. I see no benefit in this RM at all, as for consistent - go fix the blonde tennis lady, then tell us about consistent. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I think the French Academy style should be authoritative in this case. I don't approve of carving out project-level exceptions for this level of style guidance. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  And which style exactly is that? fr:Wikipédia:Conventions typographiques#Titres d'œuvres et de périodiques en français presents 4 regulations, 2 with subsections, none of which explain fr:Le Rouge et le Noir or fr:Les Petits Riens, or fr:Flic ou Voyou which understandably is internally inconsistent. Then there are fr:Usage des majuscules en français#Règles simplifiées which contradict everything before. Explaining Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry or fr:Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amélie Poulain requires advanced command of French. Further, it has been pointed out at Talk:La Vie Parisienne (magazine)#Requested move 2016 that French orthography is irrelevant in favour of English usage. In this case here, "L'ange", and in every other similar one, English sources can be found in both variants. Given the problem with native French rules and conflicting usage, and inconsistent English usage, having a simple, widely followed, guideline based on scholarly sources is a reasonable position which helps readers and editors. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per the detailed and well-reasoned nom. Wikiproject conventions certainly don't trump real usage.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]