Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Beatles

< Wikipedia:Requests for mediation
Resolved:

the case has been completed. The outcome was a community-wide RfC on the case talk page that indicates broad support for lowercase ("the Beatles") style. A subsequent discussion with Newyorkbrad provides additional details on interpreting the closure. In particular, the third caveat may not be invoked out of a personal preference for uppercase style

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

The Beatles

Formal mediation case
ArticleThe Beatles (talk) 
Opened12 Jul 2012
MediatorsFeezo (talk) and Mr. Stradivarius (talk)
StatusClosed
NotesNone
Users involved in dispute
  1. GabeMc (talk · contribs), filing party
  2. Andreasegde (talk · contribs) was asked to "leave"
  3. Penyulap (talk · contribs) indefinitely blocked
  4. Evanh2008 (talk · contribs)
  5. 99.251.125.65 (talk · contribs) blocked for one year
  6. Steelbeard1 (talk · contribs)
  7. Rothorpe (talk · contribs)
  8. Jburlinson (talk · contribs)
  9. Yeepsi (talk · contribs)
  10. Tvoz (talk · contribs)
  11. Hot Stop (talk · contribs)
  12. Richerman (talk · contribs)
  13. LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs)
  14. SilkTork (talk · contribs)
  15. Patthedog (talk · contribs)
  16. - tSR - Nth Man (talk · contribs)
  17. Jusdafax (talk · contribs) joined case

Note: It seems that not all of the editors above have been contacted by the filing party: User:Yeepsi, User:Tvoz, User:Hot Stop, User:LessHeard vanU (who is now retired), User:SilkTork, and Patthedog.--andreasegde (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I previously requested that someone send the bot around again, that may be a good idea at this point. Also, why is IP 99 still on the list, if they cannot participate then they should be stricken from it IMO. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC) I went around and notified the above users, if I missed anyone please let me know, or just notify them. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Articles concerned in this dispute
Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted
  • Link here to attempts at dispute resolution.
There have been numerous attempts made over the years. Here is the most recent attempt at the Beatles, and here is the most recent attempt at Sgt. Pepper. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about user conduct. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • This page shows that consensus was reached on 4 April 2011, after many torturous years of argument. Despite very positive comments by many editors, it can be seen at the bottom that User:GabeMc completely disregarded them. This is why we are here today.--andreasegde (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree that the response to TD was positive, but that only goes to show how much people wanted a solution to this issue. Had more people !voted for maintain in the recent polls, I would be more likely to agree that it was a good solution, considering that it is obviously not working anymore, and few (as of now only one) editors support maintaining this "consensus". I won't speak to the improper implementation again, I think the mediators will see that !votes were still coming in on 19 March, and that the tally was 13 for "the" and 10 for "The" when you started a "new" discussion on 18 March (after implementing your solution) and you started a new poll on March 18. Had you let the previous poll run its natural course, perhaps even adding an RfC tag for good measure, then we may not need to be here today at mediation. You started the "new" poll while !votes were still coming in, that is an indisputable fact. There was a support for "the" that came in the next day after you opened the "new" poll. Also, you unilaterally implemented the suggested compromise before you even opened the poll or any discussion of this solution took place. The supports came-in after you implemented your solution, but people were/are sick of arguing this with you, when we have reason and grammar to support our position and you seem to have little more than a sentimentality about the issue. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This diff, "you unilaterally implemented" has nothing at all to do with me implementing anything, because I was editing the article to show how easy it was to minimise "The Beatles" mid-sentence. If one reads this page, you will see that User:Prhartcom said, "I've changed my mind, and I've crossed out my vote above. I wrote it before reading Andreasegde's recent edits to the article. Now that I have read a fair bit of it, I must agree it seems to be working". The "recent edits" are what your diff (above) points to. No unilateral implementation at all.--andreasegde (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1: The/the problem has been "polled" for many years, with no consensus. 2: "people wanted a solution to this issue", which is why a solution and consensus was found in 2011, to minimise the repeated use of the name in the article. 3: The "recent" poll had no definite consensus, and it did/does not help to have two other polls running at the same time. 4: Please refrain from using "we/our" against "you/your", as it presents the idea that I am the only one disagreeing with a plethora of editors, which is untrue.--andreasegde (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GabeMc, when a consensus poll has been archived, is a new poll required ? if so, why ? Penyulap ☏ 10:11, 17 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Issues to be mediated

All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page.

Primary issues
Additional issues (added by other parties)
Bring this discussion to the RfC, cited below -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • "The Beatles" is a registered trade mark of Apple Corps Ltd. Because of 'The Beatles' being a trade mark, 'The Beatles' is always capitalised in mid-sentence. The developed consensus is to avoid using the band's name in mid-sentence just like I did in this sentence. But GabeMc does not want to let consensus get in the way of bringing the dispute up all over again. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't most band names trademarked? Mythpage88 (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel the need to interject here and just point out that the manual of style currently dictates that we use "the Beatles", mid-sentence. While I understand that the MoS is not policy, and am fine with consensus being established that contradicts it, I strongly feel that either the practicing of capitalizing the definite article mid-sentence needs to be abolished, or the sentence utilizing the Beatles as a specific example of where not to capitalize needs to be struck from the MoS.
We need some kind of solution to this problem. It should be clear by now that mere discussion among involved editors is not going to result in any real consensus. If this debate continues, it's going to do so with further incivility. I've already been the target of numerous false accusations and personal attacks because of this nonsense. It's gone on long enough, and we need a permanent solution now. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the thrust the MOS is trying to convey is that each section of the project has its own idiosyncrasies, and the MOS is saying it is meant to be left up to the local level to determine the exact practice to be used in that area. Similar to having different levels of government. However, the style of writing the MOS is using probably doesn't account for the different reading styles people have, maybe it's poorly written. The spelling and capitalisation used is left to the local level, which means the polls. If the polls aren't clear, they may be poorly constructed. Looking outside of the local level for examples as a guide is fine, but looking to the MOS itself for a wider consensus is flawed because it is trying not to give any consensus on the issue, it's turning the question back to the local level avoiding taking any substantial position on the issue. The use of commonality and avoiding the problem is extremely effective and is to be applauded. For the few cases left after the rest have been removed, try smaller polls for specific places in the article, the title, the first instance in the lede and so on. You'd knock off a few extra ones that way where they are quotes and so on, as well as educate your pollsters. Queue someone telling me I don't know what I'm talking about :D Penyulap ☏ 09:57, 13 Jul 2012 (UTC) 09:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly with your summary.--andreasegde (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also feel the need to interject here and point out that the WP:MOSTM currently dictates that we use "The Beatles" (capitalized), midsentence, including, but not exclusive to, these paragraphs, where it is stated:

Trademarks that officially begin with a lowercase letter raise several problems because they break the normal capitalization rules of English that trademarks, as proper nouns, are written with initial capital letters wherever they occur in a sentence.

and

Capitalize trademarks, as with proper names.

While I understand that the MoS is not policy, I am fine with consensus being established that contradicts it. I also strongly feel that the practicing of capitalizing the definite article mid-sentence should be enforced, the MoS needs to be made consistent with itself, English grammar rules, and all articles should comply, where logically possible. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mayhap you could make your own points without plagiarising my prose? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which, incidentally, you also did here, quoting a(n admittedly trite and overused) phrase I used in an edit summary here during my AN/I case against Radiopathy. What exactly is behind your obsession with me? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously folks, there's no point to this if the 99IP sock/troll is permitted to be a party. It's a mockery of the process. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need to worry, people can see socks pretty fast, and they get pointed out quickly too, so just enjoy chatting with them while you can is my approach. It's fun, like chatting with a criminal on the run before the cops arrive, they tell the best stories ! Don't worry yourself, it's someone else's job to take care of them, and one thing is for sure, people don't seem to take notice of anything they say, bit of a shame really. (I'm an social inclusionist). Penyulap ☏ 09:57, 13 Jul 2012 (UTC)
This page claims that the supposed "sock" known as 99.251.125.65 was/is User:Radiopathy. The case was closed, but it did not end there. On the same page User:GabeMc then accused me of being 99.251.125.65. He is also pushing his accusations here. If I knew where to complain about his wild accusations, I would, but I'll have a cup of tea first.--andreasegde (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A quick check on the internet shows that the IP for 99.251.125.65 is from Canada, but I live in Europe.--andreasegde (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what ? means nothing except that the next time i want to fake an ip address I should make it look like I am on the ISS in Kibo. Socking is for people who lack social skills, or in the case of bad admins, luck. They are easiest to spot, and easy to rule out by their actions, not their IP. Doesn't matter, it's someone else's job to find these people, if you need to ask for assistance, you should goto ANI and look for someone who is talking about socks, they'll know what to do, ask them on their talkpage. Penyulap ☏ 12:11, 13 Jul 2012 (UTC)
I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here we go again. If any of the contenders here want to actually accomplish anything you need to keep these sidetrack issues muzzled. This has been the problem in every attempt at collaboration. If I was an admin you would all get a week off and a permanent Beatles topic ban for disrupting the WP processes. Now can we just stick to the issue we are here for, just this once? 99.251.125.65 (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The trademark issue is a red herring. The article is about a musical ensemble, not a trademark: a band, not a brand. The main article doesn't even bother to mention trademarks. This is not Adidas we're talking about. Rothorpe (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you "bother" to read below, you will see that this mediation has been suspended.--andreasegde (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did see that. My view remains unsuspended. Rothorpe (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While the article is about a musical ensemble, the band's name is indeed a registered trade mark as shown at [1] as both "Beatles" and "The Beatles" are registered trade marks of Apple Corps Ltd. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing comment not listing issues to be mediated. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Minimising "The Beatles" in mid-sentence, as was previously agreed. Any articles about the group clearly state what the subject is.--andreasegde (talk) 05:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing off-topic discussion. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is extremely probable that after this mediation is over, the problem will arise again at some time in the distant future. As it has been argued about for so many years, I'd bet on it. Whatever happens here, I hereby state that it will not be me. Therefore, minimising the use of the name in mid-sentence seems extremely logical to prevent the torturous arguments from ever, ever being replayed.--andreasegde (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only one editor has !voted to maintain the non-solution you are advocating, that should tell you all you need to know about how well that has worked and how well it would work in the future. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you thought about the years ahead? The problem was argued about even before I came here six years ago. Do you truly believe it will never arise again?--andreasegde (talk) 07:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I advocate for a 1RR on whatever position they decide, so no, it won't arise again or the editor who brings it up will be warned, then blocked. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 08:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may be thinking about the next six months, or even two years. What about four years? Stating that something is the law for one side against the other will always be challenged. BTW, "warned, then blocked" sounds very authoritarian. Is this what Wikipedia should be?--andreasegde (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The supposed consensus that is being produced has precisely no leg to stand on. You've created too much discontent by producing a completely biased poll. Look at the commentary about bias, the editors are not happy right now. Forget years, you've built a consensus out of straw, not bricks. On fart and it's blown away. Penyulap ☏ 10:46, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Sorry everyone, but I'm collapsing these comments, as this section is only supposed to be used to list the issues that need to be mediated. Any other discussion should go on the mediation talk page. However, please don't mention, or even allude to, issues of user conduct there. You should put all accusations against other users "on hold" for the duration of the mediation. In fact, things will probably go the most smoothly if you don't discuss anything related to this mediation until we start the mediation proper. We will deal with all the content issues fully in due course, so please be patient until we get around to discussing them. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not want to be involved in this and have no opinion either way, but it occurs to me that the results of this mediation need to consider several different use cases, like:
    • "Starkey joined [the/The] Beatles..."
    • "Starkey, [the/The] Beatles drummer...". Or "Starkey, the The Beatles drummer..." (heaven forbid...)
    • "While McCartney was away, Samuels and her friends broke into [the/The] Beatles' bassist's home..."
    • "Photographs of two of [the/The] Beatles working together..."
  • Zad68 15:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing comments not listing issues to be mediated. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Yes indeed. Here are my answers:

  • "Starkey joined the Beatles..."
  • "Starkey, the Beatles' drummer..."
  • "While McCartney was away, Samuels and her friends broke into the Beatles' bassist's home..."
  • "Photographs of two of the Beatles working together..."

Rothorpe (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of further instances of correct usage:

  • "The "White Album" is the informal name often used to refer to the double album The Beatles."
  • "For more details, see The Beatles." (Referring to the Wikipedia article.)

Rothorpe (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here are my answers:
  • "Starkey became a Beatle..."
  • "Starkey, Beatles' drummer..."
  • "While McCartney was away, Samuels and her friends broke into the bassist's home..."
  • Photographs of the two Beatles working together..." or, depending on context "Photographs of two Beatles working together..."
Jburlinson (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Minimising even further: As articles name the group/band very clearly, it is tiring to keep mentioning the name. Examples: "Starkey was recruited to replace Best", "Starkey" (as the reader already knows what his position was), "While McCartney was away, Samuels and her friends broke into his home", and "Photographs of Lennon and McCartney working together".--andreasegde (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Four songwriters wrote for The Beatles, but the Beatles who wrote the most songs were Lennon and McCartney". That is entirely correct.--andreasegde (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minimising the problem: "The Beatles had four songwriters, but the members who wrote the most songs were Lennon and McCartney."--andreasegde (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Minimizing even further: "All four Beatles were songwriters, but the most prolific were Lennon & McCartney."--Jburlinson (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree, and I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the context argument: 1) Our MoS (and every other MoS I have) tells us to use a lower-case definite article, and 2) if the result of this mediation is to decide the issue based on the specific context of a reference to the band, then this debate moves from an article page by article page basis to a sentence by sentence basis, even a sentence frag by sentence frag basis. This approach would not seem to remediate the issue. If anything, the "context" argument only exacerbates the issue of what wiki editors should use, and it would contribute to further contention and confusion. Are we really to have a straw poll on each sentence, or each sentence frag as future disputes arise? We need a simple solution, not a complicated one, and the context argument will only cause and indeed multiply the disagreements. Imagine editors unfamiliar with this argument that will come on to Beatles articles and see that one sentence uses Big T while the next uses small t. Do we really want editors to spend several hours daily fixing the problem and switching "t"s back to the proper case based on context? Sounds like another non-solution that will in fact make the problem even worse. Question: Can anyone name one secondary WP:RS that uses both "The" and "the" in the same work? I am not aware of a single example of this in a printed source, ever. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then you are proposing "Four songwriters wrote for the Beatles, but the Beatles who wrote the most songs were Lennon and McCartney".--andreasegde (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There could be a Bateman cartoon: The Man Who Mentioned The Beatles Mid-Sentence. Rothorpe (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed Rothorpe. Also, our MoS states: "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs)." So it would seem that the context/trademark argument implies that "The Beatles" is the brand and as such would require a ™ symbol, and "the Beatles" is a generic alternative, which all my MoS guides advise using whenever possible, in lieu of a trademark. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
™ and ® are issues too small to merit anyone's attention, it's better to leave them to a passing guildsman to sort out if it needs it at all. I can't imagine most editors wouldn't simply let you do whatever it is you want to on that one as it's not worth the fuss. Put it the way you want, two or three times over the course of 6 months, and if it gets reverted, leave it that way, end of issue forever. T and t are small enough issues to go all lame over, for sure, but demanding attention for anything smaller than that is just anti-social, just do as you please, confident that everyone else has better things to do. Auntie Pesky's self-satirical advice is a lesson for everyone here Penyulap ☏ 00:16, 17 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Can someone explain why "our MoS" is being used here?--andreasegde (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the swipes aimed at GabeMc. It does not help you or your case. Regarding "our MOS", what do you think it means? How about "Wikipedia's MOS". Binksternet (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) Our MoS (and every other MoS I have) is the target of the legitimate question, I for two would like to know what the MOS is he talking about. Penyulap ☏ 15:41, 17 Jul 2012 (UTC)

@ Binksternet: What do you mean with, "Please stop with the swipes aimed at GabeMc"? "Our MoS" has been used here by two people, and I was merely asking why. BTW, why say "It does not help you or your case"? This is a mediation case involving a number of people, and not just myself.--andreasegde (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Our MoS" has been used twice here by GabeMc and by no other. I think you should lay off the pointless jabs at GabeMc because I think your lights are sinking lower each time you do. The mediation is very likely to limit your involvement more than anybody else's. It would be wise of you to proceed with this in mind. Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a mediation page. Please think of that.--andreasegde (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I say "our MoS" I am referring to wikipedia's MoS. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else mentioned 'our mos' here and while Andreasegde is right and Binksternet is wrong that it was just one editor, I side with Binksternet on the issue because, as a rule, the second individual should always be ignored. GabeMc, (and every other MoS I have) how many others do you have ? Why would our MoS appear to be giving a ruling on this, when it is trying to leave it to the local level for editors at the local level to determine, this is a serious question, as the MoS needs a fix if it is going to cause enough confusion to merit an improvement. It's not a matter of 'just you' being confused, I'll have to look for others who are !voting with a reference to the MoS, rather than a reference to the musicians. Penyulap ☏ 23:12, 17 Jul 2012 (UTC)
If one uses the trademark for profit, which doesn't apply here.--andreasegde (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, trademark protection (and copyright protection, but that's unrelated) protects against all unauthorized uses of the mark/property in question, not just uses that involve money. The fair use exemption for non-profit and/or critical and educational usage is where secondary sources like biographers, and by extension tertiary sources like Wikipedia, can get away with using the mark without authorization. Questions of profits derived from the mark only enter the equation when you're talking about seeking monetary damages in a court. Incidentally, this is also why you wouldn't be allowed to print up and distribute a bunch of T-shirts with "THE BEATLES" written on them in big, bold letters, even if you were giving them away for free.
But, as far as I can tell, trademark law is entirely unrelated to the capitalisation issue. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Evan. The trademark argument is not valid for our purposes here. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I quote from above: "Wikipedia, can get away with using the (trade)mark without authorization." As the trademark is "The Beatles", there is no problem here when it is used.--andreasegde (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if we assume for a minute that the trademark argument is indeed valid, then it is still only a factor in the article chronology after they trademarked their name. For example, at Muhammad Ali, we refer to him as Cassius Clay prior to his name change in 1964, same with Malcolm X and Kareem Abdul Jabbar. So even if the trademark argument is correct, it would only apply to the article post late 1990s when the name was TMed. So we would have "the" throughout up to the year they TMed the name and "The" thereafter. Any thoughts? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Beatles trademarked the name in 1964. It says: "Beatles trademark document signed by all four members of The Beatles, and dated November 23, 1964, in the City of London. It authorizes "The Beatles" name to be registered and used by the group in the U.S."--andreasegde (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The trademark issue is a red herring, not a determinant in this dispute. Major trademarks beginning with "The" have often been reduced to lower case in the middle of a sentence. For instance, we see articles written about the New York Times, a trademarked name beginning with a capital "T", the authors using lower case "t" in mid-sentence:
  • "The trust: The private and powerful family behind the New York Times" (1999)
  • "The girls in the balcony: women, men, and the New York Times" (1990)
  • "Agenda Setting and the 'New' News Patterns of Issue Importance Among Readers of the Paper and Online Versions of the New York Times" (2002)
  • "The story of the New York times: The first 100 years, 1851–1951" (1970)
  • "The Pentagon Papers as published by the New York times" (1971)
I see no reason why the Beatles and other bands should be exempt from our normal MOS found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Capitalization of "The", Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of "The", and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Names (definite article). Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS says "Generally do not capitalize the definite article", and "should in general not be capitalized" (my emphasis on the two words). There's the quandary.--andreasegde (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS needs tightening, de-waffling, to avoid another repeat of this argument. It should require "the Beatles" in mid-sentence links and lists too. Rothorpe (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rothorpe, any ambiguity or contradiction in the MoS can and should/will be fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the MoS is a guide. It says: "The Manual of Style is a style guide for all Wikipedia articles." To keep citing it is to elevate the position of a tour guide to a judge. --andreasegde (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue relating to user conduct, and is not subject to mediation. Also, please keep in mind that mediation does not give rulings on content — the purpose to help editors cooperatively resolve disputes. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parties' agreement to mediation

Please send a Wikipedia e-mail to User:Feezo, or User:Mr. Stradivarius to confirm. The link can be found here.

All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.

  1. GabeMc. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rothorpe (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I suppose I'm involved enough to be listed here. Whatever the solution is, I'll gladly abide by it. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The process is fundamentally flawed by the topic ban of an editor who is clearly willing and able to work towards a compromise, however, a process that is aiming low is better than nothing. Penyulap ☏ 10:58, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)
  5. 99.251.125.65 I was not notified but can still abide by this decision as all involved parties should. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 04:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'm in. An e-mail has been sent to User:Feezo--andreasegde (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. So am I. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. More than happy to abide by decision, but have a question: Why would this decision affect only those articles listed above and not the dozens of other articles for each individual Beatle, their significant others, their songs, etc. ? Wouldn't it apply across the board? Jburlinson (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It would apply across the board. Rothorpe (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I'm not in dispute with anyone - I made some comments when the straw poll was instigated and cast my vote, but since then this whole thing has been blown up into a ridiculous drama. How I have become a 'party' in this mediation is a mystery to me as it isn't something I asked for or want. I am quite happy to abide by what ever is decided because, to be honest, I've decided that upper case or lower case 'T' really isn't that important. I will be striking my name from this mediation and my vote from the straw poll. Richerman (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I agree to mediation of this dispute. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please ping me when/if my input is needed. I don't have this page watchlisted. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Email sent yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 23:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Emails sent Hot Stop 06:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Patthedog (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Email sent.[reply]
  14. I'm in too, although I cannot believe this was raised again. Email sent to Feezo. Tvoz/talk 01:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

I note here that,I have closed an AN/I discussion relating to the behaviour of some of the parties with a topic ban for Andreasegde and an interaction between him and GabeMc that specifically allows participation in formal dispute resolution, and personally encouraged both to continue with mediation accordingly. — Coren (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move requests

Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.

  • Question/Comment. Why are there editors who aren't listed as parties but are accepting the mediation? Gabe, are these people also part of the dispute? I'm just a bit confused. Lord Roem (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suspend. Pending completion of an RfC on this subject. This request may be evaluated at another time, after the RfC concludes. Please bring your discussions there. If the RfC does not result in consensus, the filing party should leave a note on my (or any other mediator's) talk page to reconsider opening this case. For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accepted. It's pretty clear no consensus is going to be reached at that RfC, this case is accepted, we will have a mediator or mediation team assigned shortly. For the Committee, --WGFinley (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/The_Beatles&oldid=1082115908"