Talk:Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Military history: War films

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	War films task force

Film: War / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the War films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Caps

I've moved the artilce to "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo" per a request and this movie poster: [1] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of the episode is beyond any question

Not only it has its own Wikipedia article, it is also much longer and better referenced than this of the original film here. (It was also much much better written, too.) --Niemti (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not the issue, authoritative and verifiable sources was ... FWiW, better written is certainly another "in the eye of the beholder" as even a cursory check, indicated five contextual and stylistic errors in the first paragraph alone. Bzuk (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

This article here was really badly written, you know.[2] --Niemti (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity: what were "Ace Combat, Battlefield, and Metal Gear Solid appearances, and ALL anime/fiction look-a-like speculation" all about? --Niemti (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This reflected a period of fancruft and cruft additions to many aviation themed articles and the invisible note was a reminder of that period, added to many articles to caution about adding non-notable appearances in media. The offshoot was that many of the trivia and popular culture sections were summarily done away with and now, the section is more aptly named "Notable appearances in media." BTW, feel free to improve this article. From the Pere Ubu reference: "Singer David Thomas named the band after the protagonist of Ubu Roi, a play by Frenchman Alfred Jarry. The single, "30 Seconds Over Tokyo" b/w "Heart of Darkness," released in 1975, was the first of four independent releases on Hearpen Records and, along with Television's "Little Johnny Jewel," signaled the beginning of the New Wave." (Again, not my addition but I will support any submission that is adequately sourced.) Bzuk (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131015070157/http://video.onset.freedom.com/nwfdn/kz4hzl-eglininthemovies.pdf to http://video.onset.freedom.com/nwfdn/kz4hzl-eglininthemovies.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 May 2021

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.

No consensus to move. After much-extended time for discussion, there is no consensus for a move at this time. BD2412 T 15:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo → Thirty Seconds over Tokyo – Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Capital letters. Patrik L. (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Patrik L. (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - "Over" is a functional word, and is capitalized in the film's actual title, as well as the actual title of the book. ([3] see "Literary" and "History:") Our MoS does not override the real-world titles of things. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The manual of style is clear that prepositions of 4 letters or less are not capitalized in titles. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The Manual of Style is not mandatory. (2) The actual, real-life titles of the film and the book (which I have right here) use the capital "O". Our article is about that actual real-life film. Following the MoS is fine when it comes to article titles which we're created ourselves, but not when they are about real-life things. Then, they should use the actual title, not our bastardization of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
New York Times: [4]
Variety: [5]
The Hollywood Reporter": [6]
AFI Catalog: [7] see "Literary" and "History:"
TCM: [8]
IMDB: [9]
AllMovie: [10]
Rotten Tomatoes: [11]
International Motion Picture Almanac (1951): [12]
UC Berkeley Library: [13]

TK Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The MoS is usually quite strictly enforced in this area of short prepositions not being capitalized in titles of works. And what's really the point of having the MoS say not to capitalize short prepositions if we are not going to follow it? Rreagan007 (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Style guidance is excellent when the choice is arbitrary, but the first rule is to follow sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support: We should follow our own style guide for caps, a.k.a. MOS:5LETTER – and "over" is only 4 letters. This is not a matter of the title – just its capitalization styling. The "actual, real-life title" is the same and I am not aware of a concept of a "functional word" as part of English grammar or orthography. Indeed, functional word is a red link. The poster art has THIRTY SECONDS OVER TOKYO, which is another red link and rightly so. Wikipedia generally prefers lowercase. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Capital letters addresses this specific case: In titles (including subtitles, if any) of English-language works (books, poems, songs, etc.), every word except for definite and indefinite articles, short coordinating conjunctions, and short prepositions is capitalized. "Short prepositions" are later defined in the same section as those having four letters or fewer. But I'm not convinced that the title is universally capitalized outside of Wikipedia anyway. For the book at least, the Open Library lists six editions, none of which capitalize "over" in the title. Rublov (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Directory sources are not good sources, but the titling of the book is an important consideration. Why is there no article Thirty Seconds over Tokyo (book) or Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo (book)? SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Beyond My Ken. The idea that our MOS should "overrule" sourcing has always stuck me as completely inexplicable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination, Rreagan007, BarrelProof and Rublov. MOS takes precedence over orthographic inconsistencies found in the wild. In 2013, a lengthy uppercase/lowercase discussion {at Talk:A Boy Was Born#Requested move} favored MOS. Uppercase "O" continues to be widely used, however — Holly Slept Over, Boys Over Flowers, Reign Over Me, the various entries under Crossing Over (disambiguation), Game Over (disambiguation), Get Over It (disambiguation) or Starting Over (disambiguation), etc and discrepancies continue to be pointed out, such as at Talk:One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (film)#Title capitalization. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While our manual of style provides guidance for format and capitalization, our guidelines also clearly us to use titling as used in an overwhelming majority of reliable sources. That absolutely does not mean we need to always use the "correct" or official one -- and in fact it often means we do not, which is where our style guide can be very helpful. But in cases where both the correct title and usage in reliable sources are aligned, it undermines our credibility to choose to be inconsistent.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MOS:CT. Darkday (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I strongly dislike the idea of the MOS overriding the actual work's format, but it does say that it takes precedence in these cases. See here:

Potential exceptions: Apply our five-letter rule (above) for prepositions except when a significant majority of current, reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently capitalize, in the title of a specific work, a word that is frequently not a preposition, as in "Like" and "Past". Continue to lower-case common four-letter (or shorter) prepositions like "into" and "from"." (emphasis added)

I personally think this provision should be removed and the current title kept, but current policy does seem to favor moving the article. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3 kids in a trenchcoat, not all reliable sources capitalize it, though. Here's Britannica and the Criterion Channel. So even setting aside the specific MoS clause that applies to this case, I'm not sure the fully-capitalized title meets the baseline MOS:CAPS guideline. Rublov (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME - this ngram shows that capitalizing "Over" is more common, even if this trend is waning. Mysterymanblue 21:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too many sources capitalise “Over” when not using all caps styling, eg [14]. MOS is good, but revisionism is more bad, and the four letter proposition rule needs some flexibility, don’t make every little arbitrary guideline an iron rule. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 1 July 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.