Talk:Nocturnal after John Dowland

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

requested move

. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved; there is clear consensus against the proposed move. bd2412 T 17:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nocturnal after John Dowland → Nocturnal After John Dowland – Several manual of style guidelines, all of which are consistent about capitalizing "After": In general, each word in English titles of books, films, and other works takes an initial capital, except for articles ("a", "an", "the"), the word "to" as part of an infinitive, prepositions and coordinating conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., "on", "from", "and", "with"), unless they begin or end a title or subtitle. Cf. the specific style on music Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Music#Capitalization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - As pointed out above I see no reason to deviate from the title as it appears in print. We have English and American English articles, why not tolerate this minor difference from a MOS that seems (too?) rigid in this matter? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per wikipedia MOS and what is more definitive, the worldcat listing. However, not a moral issue in either direction. Montanabw^(talk) 18:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The title of the work uses the lowercase and we shouldn't differ from that. The vast majority of reliable sources also use the lowercase, so in accordance with
  WP:MOS which are guidelines. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'm afraid you're mistaken. The article title is independent from the way it is formatted.

talk) 15:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support per
  MOS:CT. I really don't see why this is so difficult. --BDD (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Breath of fire, or I'd do anything for love (but I won't do that). And for what it's worth, AACR's successor Resource Description and Access essentially leaves it up to catalogers whether to continue this capitalization scheme or to transcribe it exactly as it appears on the item. --BDD (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

LOL, BDD, you just described wikipedia's capitalization MOS! I'd say that is you want to make that case (which is an argument that is not frivolous...) then it's a way bigger issue than here. Montanabw^(talk) 19:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, or those examples I gave would be the titles we use for articles. The important distinction, expressed in pages like

"Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization," but we don't count titles of works in that, just like virtually all journalistic or encyclopedic sources. This has not been the practice in library cataloging thus far simply because everything we catalog, by definition, will have a work title. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, I have usually been guilty of overcapitalization, so this is a switch for me. But it IS how even the work's authors capitalize it, it is a subtitle (admittedly after is 5 letters) and so that's basically where I'm at. Like I say, not a moral issue, I shall let others spat this out. Montanabw^(talk) 21:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The title as given on the sheet music itself has the lower-case 'a' - this is the name the composer and publisher chose for it. WP's capitalisation policies must be secondary to that. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the

talk) 13:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]