User talk:InfiniteNexus/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Concern regarding Draft:Google messaging apps

Hello, InfiniteNexus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Google messaging apps, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Miniseries

shouldn't we have sources that say it is a miniseries rather than assuming anything?[1] It is fairly recent change to the article, I am surprised you restored it. I wouldn't put it past Disney to classify the show in whatever category they thought might get them more chances of winning awards. -- 109.79.75.196 (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

We're being consistent with the other MCU Disney+ shows that have been released, all of which use "miniseries" with the exception of Loki and What If...?. To challenge this consensus, a larger discussion at WT:MCU would probably be needed. This issue was brought up once in the past, but nothing came out of that discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I was not familiar with the past discussions. It seemed like a recent change that hadn't been explained. I was ambivalent, and basically restoring what seemed to be the WP:STATUSQUO. I expected the production section to also say miniseries somewhere. I have no interest in challenging the consensus, it just doesn't look good when the lead section says things not reflected in the article body, so I would hope that editors would improve the article body to match but I dont plan to edit that article any further. -- 109.79.75.129 (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Hymns of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1985 book)

This is the ONE exception I can find where the "The" actually DOES need to be capitalized. It's because it's a published work. See, for example: The Old Man and the Sea. WP:THE carves out a specific exception for the titles of published books. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: Not quite. I'm not sure how this relates to The Old Man and the Sea or WP:THE. The former has the second "the" uncapitalized (the first "the" is the first word of the article title, so of course it's capitalizd), and the latter discusses whether to include "the" at the start of an article name. "The" appears in the middle of Hymns of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1985 book). Additionally, see MOS:TITLECAPS. It has always been the case on Wikipedia that "the" is not capitalized in published works. There has never been any "exception". InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The former has the second "the" uncapitalized yes, because that is how it's written on the book itself: [2] [3] [4]

It has always been the case on Wikipedia that "the" is not capitalized in published works This is not true. See: MOS:THECAPS, for example: The Lord of the Rings is how we do it, even mid-sentence. See also: The Hobbit, There and Back Again

We don't capitalize "the" in the Odyssey, because "the" is not part of the title. The title is simply Odyssey. But we absolutely do for The Lord of the Rings and The Old Man and the Sea.

You're right that it's not an "exception", the policy is explicitly that published works which by convention in our sources are capitalized "The", when it is part of that title of the work (at the beginning), is how we capitalize it everywhere on wikipedia, even mid-sentence use. I think the issue here is that it's a mid-work-title The, not just a mid-sentence one. In most english-language works, the convention is to not capitalize "the" in the middle of a book title. But I don't think it is explicitly said in our MOS that books etc would be treated this way. The Hague comes to mind. Books about The Hague probably keep the "The" mid-sentence. e.g. Treaty of The Hague.

I get what you're saying about MOS:TITLECAPS. I think the discrepancy here is that it never covers a work where "The" is how it's used, mid-title, everywhere the work is described in our sources. Because every example given also has its title in title case. It gives explicit exemptions for books in other languages, or which have weird usage of normally non-capitalized words. But it never covers something like this.

Now that I examine it, I don't think this is actually covered anywhere precisely in our MOS, given that so few other works would ever capitalize a mid-title "The" like this. It may be the case that an RM would be required. I'll move it back to the stable title until that happens. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, MOS:TITLECAPS. I implore you, please read MOS:TITLECAPS. It literally says right there that the word "the" is uncapitalized in the middle of a title of a published work. I don't understand why you're continuing to list examples of works that begin with "the", I am not contesting the capitalization of "the" at the start of a title (that doesn't make logical sense), I am not contesting whether to include "the" at the start of a title, and neither applies to Hymns of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1985 book). No RM is needed because of MOS:TITLECAPS, and even if there was an RM there would be near-unanimous support per MOS:TITLECAPS. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I read the article you linked two comments ago, when I read the comment you made two comments ago. It definitely covers the many situations where definite articles are used in titles as part of usual title-case. But, as I said, it does not cover unusual situations like this. It explicitly does not cover situations like books written about The Hague, or books written about The Lord of the Rings which have the title in their titles. It only does so implicitly. I understand why you're frustrated, this is a weird situation and we are several layers of complexity down a rabbit hole of title case and capitalization convention. e.g. the confusion between MOS:TITLECAPS and MOS:THETITLE in dealing with The New York Times mid-sentence. For example: The New York Times#Podcasts describes: "Inside The Times" and "Inside The New York Times Book Review", or for a more specific example Not The New York Times. Are you suggesting all of those uses are wrong, and should be reversed?

I want to make clear, I have no intention of starting an RM on this myself, I don't care. I truly, truly do not care, except to make sure I personally did the right thing when executing that RFC. At this point, I have done that, and I see there is a weird thing about this particular instance, and so I am going to now move on to do more important things with my life. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

MOS:TITLECAPS states (emphasis my own): In titles (including subtitles, if any) that are the English-language titles of works (books, poems, songs, etc.), every word except for definite and indefinite articles, short coordinating conjunctions, and short prepositions is capitalized. The only exception to this rule is publications and acronyms, per MOS:TMTHE. Institutions are not exempted, per MOS:THEINST and the RfQ you closed a while ago. So to answer your question, the NYT examples are correct, but the "the" in "The Hague" and "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" should never be capitalized in the middle of a sentence. The Hague examples are thus titled incorrectly, but I have no interest in starting a discussion to move all of them. (I only got involved in this LDS Church debate after an editor contested a round-robin page move I made at WP:RM/T.) Secondly, MOS:THETITLE concerns work titles with "the" as its first word, not the middle, so that applies to Lord of the Rings but not the LDS Church. There is therefore no confusion, and I'm just going to keep going back to MOS:TITLECAPS since that's the only guideline that applies to this article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I am going to give you one piece of advice about wikipedia. Advice that everybody needs to hear at some point, including people with lots and lots of edits. It's that consensus is achieved by people who compromise and know when to have a discussion about something, and when to WP:DROPTHESTICK. My question was rhetorical. You didn't need to answer it. You can feel free to have the last word, I will not reply. Have a great day. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the WP:DROPTHESTICK comment, but Hymns of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1985 book) should be moved back. That was the whole point of this discussion, no? InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

In the future, I would recommend looking at an article's current title before you assume someone else hasn't done something they said they would do. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

My bad on that one, but regardless, what I hope you took away from this discussion is that from here on out, similar cases should also have the "the" uncapitalized when in the middle of a sentence. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

LunarXNova

Thanks InfiniteNexus, I didn’t know about that, I will link everything now 120.22.150.189 (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Not links, references to reliable sources. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Avengers: Quantum Encounter

Hello, InfiniteNexus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Avengers: Quantum Encounter, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)