Talk:The B-52s

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: Moved. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 13:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @Nom: Your edit making a global apostrophe removal was really clumsy. You definitely shouldn't change the titles of cited sources or the titles of linked Wikipedia articles to be different from what they really are. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems very clear that the band primarily called themselves "The B-52's" (with an apostrophe) up until 2008, and most sources during that period referred to them that way. It seems rather anachronistic for the article to refer to them without the apostrophe for the period before 2008, and their period of greatest notability was 1978–1985, i.e. during that period of time. Regardless of whether the apostrophe is grammatically "correct" or not, it was being used. Discogs and IMDb continue to include the apostrophe, as do the title of their best-selling album and their anthology. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about the historical presentation of the band's name, but this move (and my alternative below) reflect current usage. This should NOT be taken as a blanket change - titles of albums/media (and sources) should reflect how they are actually presented, and the article should be written to explain the subtle changes to the bands name over time. Discogs and IMDb are user-generated, so aren't good sources - they more likely than not derive their usage from Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 19:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine that Discogs and IMDb are deriving usage from Wikipedia, when the band's popularity long predated Wikipedia, and there are a huge amount of RSs using it. CAVincent (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fair enough, that wasn't what I intended.Neilinabbey (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to
  WP:THE, the article title should not include it. -- Netoholic @ 19:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I think
    WP:THE does not support removal of "The" here. On the contrary, it says "When a proper name is almost always used with 'The', especially if it is included by unaffiliated sources, the article 'The' should be used in the name of the corresponding Wikipedia article as well." AFAIK, nobody refers to this band without including "the" – at least not as a noun – sometimes the "the" might be removed when the band's name is used as an adjective (e.g., "a B-52's song"/"a B-52s song"). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Note that capitalization is not relevant there.
      MOS:THEMUSIC even suggests using lowercase "the" for the Beatles in running prose. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      The very first line in

      B-52s". The very fact that as you point out there are usages like "a B-52s song" at all points to the incorrect titling of this article. -- Netoholic @ 08:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

      ]

      WP:THE primarily says to include "the" in the title for a band when "a proper name is almost always used with 'The'", rather than to look at the capitalization. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

      ]

      "a proper name is almost always used with 'The'" - right. Capital The, not lowercase the. You're missing the distinction, because

      WP:THE for that. -- Netoholic @ 19:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

      ]

      Let me also direct your attention to the second paragraph of

      B-52s should be just like the Ramones. -- Netoholic @ 19:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

      ]

      In the case of the Ramones, all of their record covers (and t-shirts, etc.) released while the band was a going concern omit "the" from the band's name, leading to a consensus that the band's official names is just "Ramones" even though they are almost always called the Ramones in everyday speech. The opposite is true of the B-52's - I'm not aware of any record cover which doesn't include "the" as part of the band's name. Even in 2023, while they've dropped the apostrophe, their website (https://www.theb52s.com/), merchandise, etc. all include "the" as part of the band's name. Your argument that a capitalized "The" need be commonly used in running text to make it part of the band's name just doesn't hold water. Wikipedia's articles on the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and the Who also don't currently capitalize "The" in running text. (Actually, of the six examples under WP:THE, only two articles use a capitalized The in running text at all, and those inconsistently.) I would also kind of expect that someone entering just "B-52s" as a search term is looking for a bomber, hairstyle, cocktail, etc. and not the band. (Separately, I should maybe apologize for any earlier incivility. I think that this suggestion is profoundly misguided, but don't want to discourage wikipedians' from good faith contributions to the project.) CAVincent (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      Note, though that in all those B-52s self-styled cases - their logo, bio text, etc - uses lowercase "the" to the point of in one place on their bio explicitly excluding "the" and replacing it with "a" in the sentence "exposed to a B-52s concert experience" and omitting articles entirely in the sentences "the newly-christened B-52s" and "quintessential and contemporary B-52s". Clearly, the band is telling us that their name is simply "B-52s". Also, listing counter-examples like

      WP:THE more properly applied. -- Netoholic @ 04:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

      ]

• Support In ictu oculi (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose The B-52's is no more "grammatically incorrect" (per request) than Outkast or the Beatles misspelled their band names. It was how the band presented their name for decades, and in the most important period of the band. It's fine to not use the apostrophe for periods after they stopped using it. The suggestion to remove "The" from the article title is frankly too stupid to deserve a response other than contempt and dismissal. CAVincent (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that there is no need to remove 'The', but I don't see why you have to express your view in such unnecessarily aggressive, vitriolic and utterly over-the-top terms - that's really not helping you or anyone, so please help to keep the discussion civil. Thank you.Neilinabbey (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per the nominator's rationale. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The removal of the apostrophe some 15 years ago (proof is lacking about the timing) has not been embraced by all sources, for instance The New York Times and Rolling Stone. No widespread agreement in sources. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  it has by the band themselves, though, which in my view would trump other sources.Neilinabbey (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's true that reliable sources don't seem consistent: both Rolling Stone ([1][2][3]) and the New York Times ([4][5][6]) use both the apostrophe and non-apostrophe forms. As such, following the form the band itself uses seems reasonable. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  See also

  WP:SPNC: "For minor spelling variations (capitalization, diacritics, transliteration, punctuation and spacing after initials, etc.): when a consistent and unambiguous self-published version exists, it is usually followed." 162 etc. (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Support – Sources being inconsistent, we should use the grammatically sensible version (as the band does on their own website). Dicklyon (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]