Talk:Remember not, Lord, our offences

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Exhortation and Litany
?

Capitalisation of title

Moved from
talk) 12:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

You recently renamed

talk) 16:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Please see
talk) 16:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Please also see
talk) 16:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm familiar with the policies you cited, irregardless they are not capitalised in the catalogues of musicologists who do this shit for a living Policy can be wrong from time to time...wouldn't be the first time Wikipedia was. Screw what reliable sources prepared by experts do because MOS (a mere guideline) says to do it differently. --
talk) 17:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
If you regard the MoS as "a mere guideline", then take into account
talk) 17:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't regard MOS as a mere guideline...it advertises itself as a "guideline." Your essay is just further proof that Wikipedia enjoys putting up signs saying "we're a bunch of happy 12-year olds...experts not welcome" I guess the works of musicologists (including the one cited in the very first line of the article), the title as printed on almost every score since it was composed, its listing in the catalogues and manuscript collections where it was included, the source text, and anything else that points to the original format for the title doesn't apply because MOS says "hey, capitalise" the title despite all else. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. Double down on wrong. --
talk) 17:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
English language usage and capitalisation conventions have changed a lot since 1679. Using the original format is "wrong". Do you think we should format
talk) 18:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The only score I've seen with it capitalized is the one on IMSLP. I'm including a lot of 19th/20th/21st century scores. And Zimmermann's catalogue was done about 50 years ago. Open any BCP, look at the litany, the text isn't capitalised. MOS is wrong on this one.--
talk) 21:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The Chicago Manual of Style, which is what our MOS is largely based on, has this to say:

Compiling a bibliography raises questions of how much editing may be done to the title of a printed work in applying rules of style. Because capitalization, punctuation, and the use of italics on a title page are generally matters determined by the publisher rather than the author, scholars agree that these may be changed within limits, but that the author's spelling must not be altered. — CMS-13, §16.31: "Titles"

--

talk) 09:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

And I've reverted your move - it didn't even fall in line with your own reasoning, as you had capitalised "Offences", which no source does. --
talk) 09:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Please could you also demonstrate a single policy or guideline which supports your view. --
talk) 09:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Yeah, "Offences" remained capitalised while bots fixed the double redirect problem after I requested it returned at WP:RM. I started the article lowercase. Historically usage of "offences" or "Offences" has been 50-50, so I went with the BCP initially, and used the lowercase when I create the article. Editorial discretion. But none capitalise "not" or "our". But again, the usage of experts, history, the composer, publishers cannot matter. MOS!! MOS!! MOS!! MOS!!. See what confusion you introduced.--
    talk
    )

I don't care who's right but both of you must stop move-warring. A full discussion at

BencherliteTalk 12:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Point taken
talk) 12:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
This isn't a naming issue, but a style issue. We can both throw
talk) 15:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Sentence case would include the properly capitalised composition titles, as the guidelines
talk) 15:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
There's no dispute as far as
talk) 15:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Splitting hairs just so you can persist in WP:IDHT. There's no reasoning with you--ignore what the reliable sources and history says...your way is right because it's your way. Great job on the sophistry it serves your purpose...definitely improves the encyclopaedia (SARCASM) by
talk) 15:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
(
talk) 15:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
You were about as accommodating as a hyena. Pot calling the kettle black. You win. Your uninformed understanding trumps the composer, publishers, experts and the reliable sources. Correctness will bend to the will of the MOS and an editor who
talk) 16:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Move?

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. 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: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rechecked the MOS discussion, and the proposal to make names of works known by first lines as article titles is fully supported. But "A Boy Was Born" must still stand; in fact, I check the lyrics and just found "A boy was born in Bethlehem..." No other first liners in the lyrics use the same title, so... well, at least this discussion ain't "A Boy Was Born". George Ho (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Remember_not,_Lord,_our_offences&oldid=1210011993"