Talk:So Near and yet So Far

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Jazz

	project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Songs

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Requested move 15 May 2016

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: Moved. I'd have thought "and yet" is a two word coordinating conjunction myself, so the two words should individually conform to the usual lowercasing rule. It is logically equivalent to a one word "and", "but", "yet" etc. No opposition, so I'm going ahead and moving this. — Amakuru (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the other, but this title also contains "and". Both of them separately are coordinating conjunctions. MOS:CT says that coordinating conjunctions are to be lowercased. However, "and yet" looks very tricky as a phrasal term. Does "yet" function as a coordinating conjunction? If so, "yet" should be lowercased. If not, it may function as an adverb, required by MOS:CT to be uppercased. Also, many sources uppercase "yet" in reference to the song, not the film that I'm discussing separately. Take your pick. George Ho (talk) 21:45, 15 May 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.

Oppose move

Though it is too late, I absolutely oppose this move. Wikipedia policy is irrelevant where common usage is concerned, IMO. Porter would have published it otherwise. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

MOS:CT. Do you have any evidence to suggest that there is a consistent usage favouring the old title? If you have something convincing that hasn't been mentioned above, I could reopen the RM, but otherwise I'm inclined to leave it as stands, because I think it conforms to our naming conventions now. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 11:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Or perhaps, Gareth, you can initiate a move review, which typically results in... no action on titles. George Ho (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried to move it, and it simply wouldn't budge. I can't stand it. It goes back to normal, or I do! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]