Talk:You Signed Up for This

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 a clear consensus against the proposed move. BD2412 T 19:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, the album title is You Signed Up For This, not 'You Signed Up for This'. You Signed Up For This is the way the title is stylised on the album cover itself and in official listings on music services and retailers. For those dismissing the official stylisation of the album as irrelevant, you should look at the page for the David Bowie album Heroes which is titled '"Heroes" (David Bowie album)'. On the album's cover, 'Heroes' is put in quotation marks and the name of the article follows what is on the cover. For consistency, You Signed Up For This should also follow the capitalisation clearly displayed on its album cover rather than there being two different and incongruent capitalisations of the title that are shown side-by-side. Those seeking to wrongly capitalise the title are trying to overwrite what the artist intended when the album cover clearly shows every word in the title capitalised.

Thirdly, the album title is You Signed Up For This and it should follow title case outlined by the AP Stylebook which clearly states that all words are capitalised with the exception of specifically linking words such as 'and', 'the' and 'or'. The aforementioned words are passive words that link nouns together whereas 'For' in the album title is an active word that describes intention or direction such as signing up for something with clear purpose.

This move request should not be controversial when it simply seeks this article to be consistent when capitalising the album title both in this Wikipedia article, the capitalisation clearly visible on the album cover and the capitalisation used by all sources. Novaredant^talk 02:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. No need for this gigantic wall of text. The album title clearly reads "You Signed Up For This" and only having one single word non-capitalised looks silly. JIP | Talk 14:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"looks silly" is your subjective opinion, and nothing to do with following Wikipedia Manuals of Style or guidelines. Richard3120 (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. There are not that many sources covering the album as the exception in the note on
  sentence case per Neil Tennant's insistence that the song titles "look more distinctive" written that way (paraphrasing; not saying this is exactly what he said verbatim). Editors decided against that. Same with Lady Gaga's insistence that all news sources and all her fans should stylise her album title Artpop in all caps. We decided against that because it's a pointless stylisation. So that's precedent that we do not and should not always follow what artists insist (or what we believe they've insisted). If we always followed how covers typeset titles, every Smiths and Morrissey album that uses quotation marks around the album title would have this present on the article, but they don't because the quotes mean nothing, so this is proof we don't always follow what cover artworks do. "Heroes" by David Bowie is an exception because the presence of the quotation marks implies a somewhat ironic sense of the term "heroes". So this is not a comparable example to cite. I don't think the sign on this album cover capitalising the "f" or the comparatively few sources there are covering this release equates to some existing external wide-reaching "consensus" that should override how we ordinarily capitalise album titles on Wikipedia. Ss112 16:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oppose: there's some irony in the nominator accusing other editors of being illiterate, and then missing the whole point of note (f) in
  MOS:TITLECAPS... that in the example given there for capitalising "Into", the word "Into" is not only acting as a preposition in that instance. Here "for" is unambiguously a preposition and nothing else. The note explicitly says that the example was a unique case and not typical of how a mid-sentence preposition should be written. To override the MOS for "what most sources say" is effectively to make the MOS redundant, and that's a much wider discussion than just for this album title... it would affect many other album titles, song titles, book titles, film titles, TV program titles, and indeed many articles about musicians and bands who love to have their names in all capitals or all sentence case. Should we also change Tune-Yards article to tUnE-yArDs, No Dream to N O D R E A M (is this really useful as a search term for the casual reader who may not know what the "correct" spacing is?), and Songs for Swingin' Lovers! to songs for swingin' lovers! because that's how they are stylised? Richard3120 (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That is a massive strawman and misrepresentation of the proposal. It is to correctly capitalise one letter so that the article title is in line with the actual title of the album, not to randomly capitalise every letter in the title. The different titles for the album from the cover to independent source discussion looks ridiculous. You have to be consistent and, since Wikipedia relies on consensus, sources overwhelmingly support this modest proposal to capitalise one letter in the title correctly. People on Wikipedia shouldn't be able to change the title of an album from the original simply because they disagree with it. You accused JIP of relying on opinion but you are also using your opinion when you are wilfully ignoring what reliable sources independent of the subject say which doesn't reinforce your existing conclusions. Secondly, the word 'For' in the title is also not acting only as a preposition like 'Into' in the example given in note [f]. If you look at the Cambridge Dictionary definitions of the word 'for', you will see that the word can imply purpose or intention rather than being a passive preposition. I know I'm not going to change your mind because you didn't actually comprehend the proposal and instead reached your conclusion with conjecture. --Novaredant^talk 19:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a misrepresentation, and you haven't read the Cambridge Dictionary definition that you linked to. Just because "for" can sometimes be something other than a preposition doesn't mean it is here - it's 100% a preposition. Tune-Yards see the alternate capitalisation as the "correct" form of their name, not random at all, so the analogy is valid. One more question: if the majority of reviews for the album (when they come in) use the lower-case "for", will you agree that this would be the correct title for the album, as it's what the majority of reliable sources say? Richard3120 (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because I simply want to be consistent. The title should follow whatever sources say and currently all sources capitalise the word 'For' in the title. Trying to change the album title to 'You Signed Up for This' is not supported by the overwhelming majority of independent sources and Wikipedia should not simply ignore all references because you don't like them or you disagree with it. Not following what sources say would qualify as a violation of

WP:ORIGINAL which forbids adding original content that does not appear in sources. Trying to change the album title to 'You Signed Up for This' against what every other source says is the very definition of adding original content that can't be backed up independently.--Novaredant^talk 19:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

That's fine, I just wanted clarification of your position – I appreciate the consistency in your argument. Richard3120 (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Overwhelming majority of independent sources"....it's five. Just say five. There are five sources on the article itself that mention the album title with a capital "f" in "for". There is one that doesn't (RTÉ). Regardless of the fact that we have our own guidelines on Wikipedia on how to standardise the capitalisation of titles, we're not inventing this—it's in the RTÉ source. Ss112 04:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Ss112 and Richard3120. Wikipedia has its own style manual and should follow it. I don't see a strong argument for an exception here. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per comments by Ss112 and Richard3120 about Wikipedia manual of style. User:Novaredant seems to be cherry-picking the listing for note f of
  Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles
  . Here is the full text of note f: " Consensus discussions have sometimes concluded in favor of an exception to the five-letter preposition rule, for cases that present unique facts. See, for example, multiple discussions in the archives of Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness, in which it was determined that the title is a play on words, with "Into" serving simultaneously as the start of a subtitle and as a mid-title preposition, and is found capitalized in almost all independent sources. An outlying case like this is not dispositive of how Wikipedia normally treats "into" in mid-title."

Note how it states the preposition "Into" serves as both the start of the subtitle as well as a mid-sentence preposition, and it also states this is an outlying case, and not how Wikipedia normally treats mid-title prepositions. I am in favor of following the Manual of Style, and making it a burden on the user why a mid-sentence preposition deserves to be treated as an outlier rather than standard. At this point, no argument has been presented for why this deserves to be an exception rather than the rule. How it is presented in citations and by the artist does not override Wikipedia's Manual of Style for Title Case. Mburrell (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Ss112, Richard3120, BarrelProof and Mburrell. It may be also instructive to glance at the lengthy discussion under 2013's Talk:A Boy Was Born#Requested move [the composition's original title was styled as "A Boy was Born"]. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not a MOS stickler but shouldn't this title be whatever the record company says it is? Why should a Wikipedia style guide take precedence over the commercial title? For the two titles to be in conflict makes Wikipedia look incorrect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: do we actually have a statement from the record company that says that "for" must be capitalised, or is that simply the font style they decided to use? As I said above, if we are going by whatever the artist or record label style it, them there will have to be mass changes across Wikipedia, and MOS:TITLECAPS will have to be scrapped as redundant. Richard3120 (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Ss112. We
  never capitalise propositions in article titles (or elsewhere on Wikipedia, for that matter), instead opting for title case. This doesnt appear to be a notable exception to the rule, and stating it doesn't make any sense to have the album title capitalised differently is ludicrous, as this is how it's always been done (something even I have forgotten in the past when creating articles/redirects). If a user types the capitalised title into the search bar and hits enter, they're still going to end up at the desired destination. There's no problem that needs fixing here. Sean Stephens (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oppose per
  MOS:TITLECAPS. For is a preposition with less than 5 letters, so it must not be capitalized. Darkday (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support. The article title on Wikipedia should follow what independent reliable sources say and the overwhelming majority of independent sources say that the album title is 'You Signed Up For This' with the word 'For' capitalised. With such an overwhelming consensus, it is illogical for Wikipedia to be the outlier which makes Wikipedia look unreliable. Refusing to follow what is clearly stated in independent sources also qualifies as adding original content that is strictly forbidden by
  WP:VERIFY which requires that its "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors". --Novaredant^talk 22:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

WP:RMCOMMENT, "Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." We already know you support the move quite well. Ss112 04:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose per standard capitalization rules for Wikipedia and most major style guides. If a reliable source actually had a statement as to a reason why "for" is or should be capitalized in this case I'd take that into consideration, but not just because Spotify, or whatever service/website/retailer, capitalizes it. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:ORIGINAL. --Novaredant^talk 02:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

But what is the reason it is capitalized? If it is purely for stylistic reasons, it doesn’t really matter how any source shows it? It someone wanted to write it as “fOr”, it should still be titled as “for” unless a non-stylistic reason is explicitly stated. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:11, 25 June 2021 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.