Talk:I Can't Be with You

Requested move

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.

The result of the move request was: moved to I Can't Be with You. Backed by WP:ALBUMCAPS. Favonian (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

---

I Can't Be With You → I Can't Be with You – Sanremofilo (talk) 07:41, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

• Opposed: The song has the "W" capitalized it was lower cased by edit error. Plus no reference is given as to why this should be moved. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 08:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• I also oppose for now - when a title consists exclusively of little function words, it looks odd and pointless to decapitalize just one of them.--Kotniski (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support per WP:ALBUMS: "In titles of songs, albums, and band names in the English language, the Wikipedia standard is to capitalize the first word and last word in the title. All other words except for: Prepositions shorter than five characters - Not okay: of, to, in, for, on, over, with, than". — Status {^talk_contribs  08:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment How could User:Sanremofilo purpose this when the user has never edited the article? — Status {^talk_contribs  09:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

  Check the History status it says it right there. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 09:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed then. I have no idea why the hell Kotniski would sign it with their own name. — Status {^talk_contribs  09:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

  Beats me. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 09:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support per guideline cited by Status and per regular English-naming conventions to not capitalize "with" in proper names. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Okay this isn't an album it is a song and second I can prove that you all are wrong right here, here, here and here. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 19:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

  It does not matter. WP:ALBUMCAPS covers songs, albums, and band names. It does not matter how many images you cite, you are not "proving [anyone] wrong", because this isn't a matter of right vs. wrong; It's a question of style. The style guideline for Wikipedia is not "print everything exactly as it appears on the original work"; Rather, Wikipedia's Manual of Style is based on existing style guides for American English. This means that, quite often, titles (and other things) written on Wikipedia are not going to appear exactly as they do on the original works. With respect, this is something that you will just have to get over. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support per WP:ALBUMCAPS. Wikipedia follows standard English capitalization rules for titles, in which prepositions shorter than five characters are not capitalized. This is a stylistic standard followed by many of the leading style guides, which means that titles will often not appear exactly as they do on the album covers (consider for example the thousands of albums on which song titles are printed in all-caps). --IllaZilla (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

  But we must apply our "rules" with some intelligence, and with an awareness (as is always written at the top of the guidelines) that they will have occasional exceptions. Don't you all see that the usual reason for decapitalizing words like "with" (that those words are relatively unimportant) doesn't apply in this case, since none of the words in this title is of the important kind? --Kotniski (talk) 06:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

  It has nothing to do with a word being "important", it has to do with what kind of word it is. In this case it is preposition, which in the standard rules of English capitalization are not capitalized in the titles of works. Hence Gone with the Wind, Married... with Children, Only Wanna Be with You, etc. etc. etc. I do not see a convincing argument why this title should be any exception. This is a very simple English style standard. Take it from someone who has written dozens of research papers: The capitalization standards laid out in WP:ALBUMCAPS are the same ones followed by the major English style guides, which in turn are the standards used in the academic world. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

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.

Move back

I have four references here that show it was correct the way it was originally. Reference Reference 2Reference 3 Reference 4 I'm sorry but who are we to correct what the ARTISTS put it as? This whole Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums is wrong. There needs to be exceptions to it because if that's how the artists put it as that's how we should put it. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 14:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments are flimsy and unconvincing, and do not show why this article should not follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style nor the style guidelines of academic English. This article is not a special exception in any way, shape, or form. Again, I highly recommend that getting over over this minor but straightforward style issue and moving on to more constructive pursuits. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've already explained why it should be an exception. The writers of style guides, whether our own or other people's, can't foresee every possible situation - I don't know how the closing admin came to the conclusion there was consensus to move this.--Kotniski (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you think this is an unusual situation; It is in fact quite common. There are many thousands of album/song/other work titles where every word in the title is capitalized on the work itself (eg. on the album sleeve), but we don't capitalize every word here on Wikipedia and neither do most othere encyclopedias or academic works, because they follow the widely-accepted English style guides that have been setting the standards for many decades. This is hardly a case of them "not forseeing every possible situation"...this is exactly the kind of situation that these standards were developed for. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not what I meant... This case is unusual because every word in the title is a "little" word (function word), so it makes little sense to decapitalize just one of them (the joint-longest one, come to that).--Kotniski (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

This case is hardly unusual, and for purposes of capitalization it doesn't matter if the words are "little" (or if they are so-called "function words"...p.s. that article is very poorly referenced & looks like a bunch of original research). In the title "I Can't Be with You", I and You are pronouns, which are capitalized; Can't and Be are verbs, which are also capitalized; and with is a preposition, which is not. These are the standards. If you don't like them, I suggest you take it up with Strunk & White, Chicago, Turabian, MLA, et al. There is nothing exceptional about this case; it is the same as "I'm with You", "...And I Will Be with You", etc. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Those both look equally wrong to me. I'm sure the compilers of those style guides never considered cases like this - pop songs aren't exactly normal fare for research papers.--Kotniski (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Well they're not wrong, and these are not special nor unusual cases. Pop songs are, in fact, fare for research papers (my graduate thesis was on punk and alternative rock...everything from the Ramones to Nirvana and Green Day, and I assure you it had to follow these style conventions). Regardless, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and follows academic standards even for topics that would not usually be academic fare...the nice thing about standards is that they are across the board; you'll find the same standards applied to articles about pop songs, presidents, and Pokemon. You need to get over this idea you have that this article is some kind of unusual case; it's not. We are not going to ignore Wikipedia's Manual of Style just because 2 editors disagree with it. There is a consensus for following the MoS in this case at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Prepositions needs to be changed or removed. I wish JamesAlan1986 hadn't disjointed the issue so much by spreading the conversation across so many different talk pages. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

All right, it seems that those who want to blindly follow rules outnumber those who are willing to apply their brains a little, so I give up.--Kotniski (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on I Can't Be with You. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5hFf8iFDu?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishcharts.ie%2Fsearch%2Fplacement to http://www.irishcharts.ie/search/placement

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)