Talk:WWF Invasion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support As Nominator. Can we get rid of this stupid capitalization of letters just because their marketing department used it on posters? Xtc340 23:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support per
   WP:MOSCL. There's a broad consensus across hundreds of pages that we don't humor marketers' chosen quirks of capitalization and layout; I can't see why this should be an exception. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   You do know this falls under CamelCase spellings, which ARE allowed? Also, I guess you didn't read MOSCL since nothing there applies here. TJ Spyke 04:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   You're right that I was overly hasty mentioning MOSCL. The two so often go hand in hand. This is not CamelCase though - CamelCase carries semantic meaning. Are you claiming that "InVasion" is to be understood as a compound word consisting of "In" + "Vasion"? The V in "InVasion" is decorative: a stylistic choice that the trademark holder makes to increase brand equity. It is not our job to do their marketing; in fact, broad consensus in many precedents is against it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Read my comment below, CamelCase words do not have to be a compound of two words (they just usually are). The

   CamelCase article has examples of this. TJ Spyke 04:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Look, I'm just saying how I think the spirit of our naming conventions applies in this case. Technicalities of how a guideline or article is worded mean nothing; it's all about the intent of the guideline. What do you think is the intent of MOSTM, where it says "even if the trademark holder encourages special treatment"? I'm genuinely curious what you think about that.

   I don't see this capital 'V' as being anything other than decorative, and I have observed and agree with a broad consensus that we don't do special formatting except where we make exceptions for very good reasons, not just because we can. I don't see a very good reason in this case. It's just another decorative bit of typesetting, the kind that we routinely ignore. The alternative opens the door to too much nonsense. We're an encyclopedia, and it's our job to inform about subjects, not to participate in those subjects' promotion via eye-catching typography. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Support per nom & GTBachus. - Cyrus XIII 11:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. I don't think I've seen any other publications, including WWE's, that actually use this capitalization style when they write about the angle. If there is no reliable source that supports this style, then it absolutley cannot be included. This seems to be a case of attempting to recreate the stylized typography on the promotional poster. If that is indeed the origin, I'm inclined to call it
   MoS:TM says that camelcase is "a judgment call" anyway. In this case, the style is so irregular and jarring that the best "judgment call" would be to render it in a way that conforms with standard English. Croctotheface 12:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. SupPort (hic) as per
   WP:MOSTM, nominee, WWE and User:GTBacchus. --DeLarge 18:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   MOSTM doesn't apply here, so that argument won't work. However, I have no problem with it being moved anymore (even though InVasion looks better). TJ Spyke 20:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   WP:MOSTM: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment." How exactly does that not apply? --DeLarge 20:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Reading comprehension FTL, go back and read my comments on CamelCase (which IS allowed). TJ Spyke 21:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Civility is valued here, first of all. Second, MoS:TM holds that camelcase is "a judgment call". As I said, earlier, I'm not prepared to say that this is camelcase, but even if it is, the spirit of the guideline is to avoid strange and unusual typography that is disruptive or jarring to readers strictly in order to replicate a trademark. As such, rationales citing MoS:TM for this move are certainly valid. Croctotheface 21:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I said "reading comprehension FTL" because I had already said why MOSTM doesn't apply here. I still believe it doesn't, but it doesn't matter since I no longer object to the move. It's not jarring though and is just as easy to read. TJ Spyke 21:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Support per nom and above. --Aaru Bui ^DII 22:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support, it's a trademark being given non-standard capitalization for no reason but to be different. What could be more simple? --
   talk 22:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   CAMELCASE IS ACCEPTABLE. How hard is that to understand? TJ Spyke 22:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Somehow, I feel like I've said this several times already (must be my imagination) but even if we agree that "InVasion" is camelcase, the spirit of MoS:TM is to use a style that is the most readable and closest to standard English as possible. If an editor believes that "Invasion" serves that purpose better than "InVasion", then it is quite logical for him to cite MoS:TM in support of his rationale. There is certainly no need to scream at him for it. Croctotheface 22:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   The guideline does say that CamelCase is a "judgement call", which doesn't mean that we go with it just because somebody wants to, but that we apply judgement, considering the spirit of the guideline. I've yet to see an argument that "InVasion" is consistent with the spirit of MOSTM, nor any statement of what the spirit of MOSTM is that would point to our choosing "InVasion". -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose Its the official name of the event. Just like SummerSlam is not spelled "Summerslam" or "Summer Slam". --
   3:16 23:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   But that's camel case, Summer and Slam can be contrived to be two different words, just like Wrestle and Mania. My spellcheck tells me that Vasion isn't a word. I don't even think that InVasion is the official title, just a marketing guy trying and failing to be clever on the poster. Xtc340 23:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Technically WrestleMania and SummerSlam aren't words either, at least according to evert spellchecker i've used. TJ Spyke 00:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   That wasn't my point. Please re-read my statement. Xtc340 00:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   CamelCase doesn't have to be two words. TiVo, for example, has never been two words and doesn't stand for anything. TJ Spyke 00:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   My point though is that Invasion is a word, a word that has been raPed by WWF. Xtc340 09:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   It's not like WWE is the first to do it, look at McDonad's and how they spell a lot of their menu items for example. TJ Spyke 22:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   But in your example, the whole word TiVo is made up. --Aaru Bui ^DII 13:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose bulletproof is right, it would be like spelling WrestleMania as Wrestlemania or SummerSlam as Summerslam. TJ Spyke 23:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   It doesn't make a difference for you that "slam" and "mania" are words in their own right, while "vasion" is not? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   No, for the reason I stated to Xtc. His whole reason seems to be CamelCase, but CamelCase words do not have to be made up of two seperate words. TJ Spyke 06:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Strong Oppose per bulletproof and commonsense. It's just camelcase spelling, which is allowed.
   Lrrr IV 20:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Stating your argument as being common sense would be an insult to one's intelligence. Seeing that this discussion is not one-sided nor is it in your favor, claiming this as common sense is unjustified. --Aaru Bui ^DII 04:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

I can't find a reliable source besides WP and WP mirrors that uses "InVasion". After going through several pages of Google search results, it seems that every notable publication uses "Invasion", and even most personal sites and forums use "Invasion" as well. Perhaps most importantly, WWE THEMSELVES use "Invasion". On this page, for example, they say, "[A]t Invasion, Stone Cold switched allegiances, joining Team WCW/ECW." Ignoring the fact that

WWE.com has featured both versions - "The site of 1999’s No Mercy – Cleveland’s Gund Arena – was also the home of...InVasion in 2001" and "Our July pay-per-view, Invasion/Fully Loaded..."

McPhail 20:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, so they used that style at one point in 1999. At least since 2001, they've used "Invasion". Croctotheface 21:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC) OK, that 1999 comment was bad, it's what I deserve for just glancing at the links. I should've said something about how they have used "Invasion" since right after the PPV was broadcast. It seems that, since almost the beginning, WWE has used "Invasion". It is certainly not the case that they are insisting on "InVasion" or somehow consider it official. Croctotheface 07:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.