Talk:It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)

Singles chronology

Resolved

 – Question answered.

Is there any reason why this links to Radio Song and Drive as well as the actual previous/next singles, The One I Love and Finest Worksong? -- Stubbsy67 18:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

===>Re:issues I.R.S. re-released the single on CD after R.E.M.'s success with "Losing My Religion." -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 20:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics

Can anyone put up a link to factual lyrics? I've searched and found many different versions, and most people I know don't know the exact lyrics. Normally I wouldn't care, but this particular song goes so fast, it seems appropriate. DarthLuigi36 23:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. An authoritative (i.e. official REM or IRS Records) source is desperately needed. A simply google search for the song title plus the word "lyrics" produces wildly conflicting and utterly nonauthoritative sources (and to echo a sentiment in a thread below: no, karaoke discs are not sources - the karaoke outfit I hang with has two (Sweet Georgia Brown and Sound Choice brand) discs with this song on it, and the lyrics are almost absurdly different. 68.35.40.113 09:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Environment

Resolved

 – Moot; the list in question was deleted.

We have a see also for list of songs about the environment, but the body of the article does not state why. What is this song about? If it is about the environment it becomes important to state just what it is saying about the environment. Until then, the see also should be removed. 204.69.40.7 11:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The song was involved by Greenpeace Rocks project with Greenpeace's video of industries, pollutions and protest actions. KonstKaras 20:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Places song has been used

The list of the song's appearances in popular culture at the start could be split into its own section. And can anyone remember which BBC Radio 4 comedy used the song as its theme tune? I'm sure it was one with Andy Hamilton. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pontificake (talk • contribs) 19:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Sorry for forgetting to sign. I think the answer to my question might have been "15 Storeys High" but I can't back that up at the moment. Pontificake 20:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

While I don't know of a BBC Radio comedy using this song, I'm a little surprised it isn't listed as the theme song of the french webcast Le visiteur du futur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.163.21.110 (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC) Sorry I forgot to log on before talking. I just wanted to add the french wikipedia description of Le visiteur du futur doesn't indicate this song as its theme song.

Warren Towers?

Resolved

 – Issue appears to have arrived at unchallenged resolution since January 2007.

"Warren Towers" is listed as a reference in the song under 'Lyrics'; however, even the lyrics linked to in the article say that the lyric says "foreign towers," NOT "Warren Towers." Although it's hardly authorative, I believe that Karaoke Revolution also lists the lyric as "foreign towers." Maybe "Warren Towers" should be removed? Shavedchimp 04:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No one else has objected, and I agree with you, so I've removed the reference. -- Heath 24.127.52.67 04:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur. It's definitely "foreign towers" (whatever that might actually refer to). 68.35.40.113 09:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Still there, though: I even LIVED in Warren Towers and support "foreign towers." http://www.davemcnally.com/lyrics/REM/ITSTHEENDOFTHEWORLDASWEKNOWIT(ANDIFEELFINE).asp, http://www.remrock.com/remrock/lyrics_display.php?the_track_id=a05t06 and other sources have as "foreign tower(s)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziquemu (talk • contribs) 02:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Singles?

There should information on the single versons of this song and their b-sides, following suit with discrpitions of all the other R.E.M. singles. If there's no objections, I'm going to add them a little later, at a point in my life where it's NOT one-oh-five in the morning...--24.15.165.14 06:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be useful; the US radio single version dropped an entire set of verses; significant. 68.35.40.113 09:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Refrain as slogan

According to a Google search [1] The end of ... as we know it is a very popular slogan template. Is it a cite from a song? or this template existed earlier? KonstKaras 20:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What is a "slogan template"? 68.35.40.113 09:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Its a phrase that people use but slightly changing some of it for different purposes. Example: Its the end of the world wide web as we know it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark blaze37 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The phrase does not come from the song. The song comes from the phrase. A similar thing happened to "Will the real (insert name here) please stand up", which was used by Eminem in the song "The Real Slim Shady", but which predates the song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.116.162.162 (talk) 20:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's not readily obvious for foreigners that the phrase "the end of the world as we know it" existed before the song in a context of survivalism (see here). Michael Stipe didn't come up with that saying himself, but appropriated it. It would be interesting to know whether he got it from a survivalism handbook, for example, or from the TV movie Threads (1984), that used it as a tagline and was somewhat recent in 1986, when he was working on the song. Or maybe the phrase was even more available than that, in common vernacular, I don't know. Even the abbreviation TEOTWAWKI was coopted by R.E.M. fans when referring to the song as ITEOTWAWKI (AIFF), so it's likely that someone, if not Stipe himself, made that link . - 2804:14C:5B84:815F:799A:325E:B929:E1E0 (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

CERN

Why does CERN redirects here? I want to look for information about the European Organization for Nuclear Research. Does anyone know if there is a page for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.60.157 (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• There is, but a vandal redirected it. You seem to have fixed that. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 03:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

DRINKING GAME

Does anyone know a viable source for the drinking game associated with this song? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.26.82 (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it true?

Is it true that this song was banned after the events of 9/11? 24.4.236.247 (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Banned where? It was probably banned in, like, some bar somewhere, but not on any large scale. 74.102.152.85 (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Not banned, but included in a list of songs that Clear Channel thought "lyrically questionable". Hoof Hearted (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Cover

Barenaked Ladies have covered this song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.8.246 (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

In a released form, or live? - Dudesleeper / Talk 11:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe they are mistaking R.E.M as the Barenaked Ladies. This song plays frequently on a local Toronto radio station and for a while I thought it was the Barenaked Ladies too, as their vocals are similar and it sounds like the kind of song the Barenaked Ladies would play. In any case, there's no evidence the song was ever recorded by BNL. 2607:FEA8:5860:700:C81C:1A0E:DE1C:601A (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

What level of notoriety does a band have to achieve before their cover is noteworthy enough to include? In 2002, Riddlin' Kids released an album with a cover of this song. Is it ok to add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.165.243 (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@76.186.165.243: That is fine. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

"single version"??

At least one of the track listings in the article must be giving an incorrect length. At least one of them (at least two, according to discogs) ought to match the sidebar's "single version" time of 3:29 - currently, every wikipedia instance conforms to the "album version" of ~4:04. 184.78.166.161 (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

There is definitely a shorter single version, which cuts some of the repeated material toward the end, and even drops some lyrics. Anyone who knows the song well will recognize it, because their attempts to sing along to it will be bollixed. Fortunately, this version is rare in karaoke.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Claims that the song is about High School Debate

I've heard claims that this song is about policy debate. Specifically High School debate, where they're trained to speak fast, everything is the end of the world, but it's just an exercise so in the end everybody feels fine. However I see nothing about this one way or the other in this article. Perhaps it could be addressed.

The type of High School debate you are referring to is called C-X Debate (Cross Examination Debate). The goal in this type of debate is to overwhelm your opponent with evidence suggesting that their position on the topic will cause the "End of the World" so to speak. As a result of the judging being primarily focused on the evidence presented, the debaters are trained to speak as quickly as possible to present as much information and evidence as possible to defend their case. This same style of speaking is very similar to that heard in the song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.227.147.250 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 12 February 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. After being open nearly 6 weeks, there's insufficient support to move the article. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

---

• It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine) → It's the End of the World As We Know It (And I Feel Fine)
• It's the End of the World as We Know It (EP) → It's the End of the World As We Know It (EP)

– In the previous discussion at Talk:It's the End of the World as We Know It (EP), I thought that "as" is a coordinating conjunction per WP:NCCAPS. However, I was wrong; it is a subordinating conjunction. Therefore, "As" should be re-uppercased. George Ho (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, see "as good as" as an example. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

"As good as" is a correlative conjunction, Tbhotch, not a preposition or coordinating conjunction. Hmm... When this discussion is over, I'll do case-by-case strategy on proposals. --George Ho (talk) 09:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

OK with that but in subordinating conjunction it mentions "as long as" and "as far as", which are lowercased as well [2][3]. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, Tbhotch, I'll propose uppercasing "As...As" when this discussion is over. By the way, it is also a "correlative conjunction". --George Ho (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

If it is not a subordinating conjunction, why is it listed as at subordinating conjunctions. Have a precedent or otherwise don't attempt to threat me like if I were stupid. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 00:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Here are precedents, Tbhotch: English As She Is Spoke, As Nasty As They Wanna Be, and A Nod Is As Good As a Wink... to a Blind Horse. Live As Hippie-Punks might look incorrect; Life As We Know It is correct, but the list doesn't uppercase the rest. Argus As III treats "As" as a noun. George Ho (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to already discussed titles, or a guideline pointing it out. Also some of them are doubtful. As Nasty As They Wanna Be has a mixed usage; A Nod Is As Good As a Wink... to a Blind Horse is not supported by its external sources; Live As Hippie-Punks is unsourced; Life As We Know It is malplaced; and Argus As III is a proper name, not a preposition or conjuction. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 18:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The main title has mixed usage of "As" and "as", Tbhotch. Also, is the "part of speech" relevant to this discussion? If not, I'm at disbelief at humanity's ignorance and reliance on something that has low standards. George Ho (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose move to capitalize "as", per MOS:TITLES; this is a preposition. It is absolutely not an 'as X as' construction, and it is not any of the conjunction uses. See Oxford Dictionaries Online [4], "as", preposition, entry 1: "Used to refer to the function or character that someone or something has". It is not the conjunctive uses, which are "Used to indicate that something happens during the time when something else is taking place" ("as I lay dying"), "Used to indicate by comparison the way that something happens or is done" ("Do it quietly, as usual."), or "Used to add or interject a comment relating to the statement of a fact" ("As you know, it's getting late.").  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

What, SMcCandlish? Reread the definitions again. "as" conjuncts conjoins both "It's the end of the world" and "we know it." Also, "as" is used per fourth definition as a conjunction. George Ho (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

...Well, the fourth definition is "Because; since"; fifth, "Even though". Probably you're right it does not fit the third, but fourth will do. Also, look at Merriam-Webster; it contains eight definitions as conjunction for "as". George Ho (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I have read them very closely. "Conjuncts" (as a verb) isn't even a word. You're imagining that every word or clause that intermediates between two others is a conjunction. It's not. All prepositions serve that function, but remain prepositions. A word that is normally a preposition may also serve as a conjunction, but only when the usage is not prepositional, as in the cases Oxford outlines as conjunctions. This is why you'll rarely find this "as" capitalized, even in this exact phrase, in reference to the song, in reliable sources [5]. This is exactly a case of "Used to refer to the ... character that ... something has", and is thus prepositional. All dictionaries contain definitions of as as a conjunction, and they all contain definitions of it as a preposition. This is a prepositional use.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"conjoins", I mean. George Ho (talk) 06:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Mr Ho, thanks for the heads up, but I'll Oppose even though the OED doesn't pretend any use of "as" is prepositional. (All its uses are adverbial or conjunctive. An easy way to tell is that prepositions take objects and this one's followed by a phrase. All uses of "as" are formed as understood phrases, repeating the earlier construction.) The fact is that RELIABLE secondary sources don't cap it (NY Times, LA Times, this book) and REM caps everything so they're not even trying and we ignore them. If MOS:TITLES doesn't have an exception for conjunctive "as", it should and, for my part, this falls under WP:IAR. — LlywelynII 00:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The book says read further at Wikipedia, Llywelyn. Also, it caps "the". How is the book reliable? Books and mags uppercasing "As": [6] Rolling Stone Billboard [7] [8] SPIN (hmm...) New Yorker [9] [10] [11]. George Ho (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

More sources: Fox Sports Salon (does both ways) HuffPost EW Paste. George Ho (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, apologies and good catch on the book, though "see Wikipedia" was part of my point: I don't disagree with User:SMcCandlish that our style guide will at times win out over some sources. Where we seem to part ways is that I think Wikipedia has a special obligation (because of its importance to our culture and because of the importance of COMMON and RELIABLESOURCES to it) to have a style guide that—at minimum—doesn't uphold arbitrary policies in the face of universal or near universal treatment to the contrary (cf. Star Trek into Darkness and Fly like an Eagle). The usage you're supporting here seems to be an uncommon eyesore merely for the sake of being an uncommon eyesore and, to me, the fact that you're right as a matter of MOS policy is just a reason to change the style guideline.

I was a bit taken aback by your counterexamples at first, but New York magazine ≠ the New Yorker. The rest don't look authoritative enough to best the NY Times &c. and my own belief that as is a minor word here but, if it helps at all, your sources do make me hate your proposal less and I got a subscription to the Chicago Manual to see what they said. (Not much: the general guidelines seem to leave capital as but their example page still lower-cases it. They seem to have not given it any thought.) On the other hand, maybe the OED, your Rolling Stone cite and this New York University Press text and these Google Books results (which alternate capped and uncapped "[a|A]s We Know It") will show Mr McCandlish that it isn't actually a preposition and capitalizing it isn't just a mistake of inattentive editors and prompt him to reconsider his vote. — LlywelynII 13:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Dammit. Actually, looking through that Google Books search and your sources again ... — LlywelynII 13:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

No one fails to get your point, LlywelynII (at WT:CAPS and elsewhere), that you believe that the commonness of some cases of capitalized "Like", as a preposition, in some titles in some sources is meaningful. You are simply not getting what the meaning is. It is not the case that sources are especially capitalizing "like" as somehow different and special, and that MoS is defying this convention, against reliable sources. Rather, they are applying a journalism style convention of capitalizing all prepositions, including "like", of four characters or more. Wikipedia follows the more mainstream practice of capitalizing those of five characters or more; this is a compromise between journo style, and academic style, which is to never capitalize any prepositions at all, even long and uncommon ones. It simply is not true that MoS is making up arbitrary nonsense; we're following the style recommended by the most influential style guides intended for a general audience. Yes, it is a compromise between two extremes, and like all compromises it will not please everyone all the time, but it does allow us to stop arguing about something and get on with the work, which is what our style manual (like all of them) is for.

As for Oxford, as, and prepositional use, see their actively maintained dictionary at [12]. As I already demonstrated, this usage in particular is classified as prepositional, and is even a usage specifically outlined by Oxford as such: "Used to refer to the ... character that ... something has".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Very begrudging Support. I actually think the current title is correct and hate this move (as above) but it is what the MOS currently recommends and a review of the literature (above) shows it's not as uncommon as I thought, nor so uncommon that I should be pushing IAR just to get around the mistake at the Manual of Style. We can move it back if there's a consensus over there to fix the mistake. — LlywelynII 13:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • It's unclear what you mean. The current title has a lower-case "as", and this is what is consistent with MoS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, the title could just as easily be "It's The End Of The World As We Know It (And I Feel Fine)" as shown here. I find the allusion to an execrable NYT headline mindset quite disarming. This desecration of works of art in the name of an all-encompassing "Manual of Style" has to stop. I bask blissfully in the (wholly unsupported) belief that Michael Stipe neither knows nor cares what a "correlative conjunction" is, and least of all what a "coordinating conjunction" is. A choice of capital letters is part of the artistic process. Why do the rules of grammar apply to "a seemingly stream of consciousness rant with a number of diverse reference"? Sorry to sound like a Fanboy here, or like someone who has dropped one too many e's. But thanks, SMcCandlish, I never even realised that "a word that is normally a preposition may also serve as a conjunction, but only when the usage is not prepositional". At least I've leant something. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The cover of the single and the back cover of the Document album on which the song appears [13] are all in ALL CAPS. There is clearly no inviolable "artistic intent" at work here, so it's not a relevant concern. I agree with you that the move is wrong, but it's wrong because the grammatical rationale for it is incorrect, so capitalizing it is against our capitalization conventions (and even the looser ones of journalism).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Looser conventions of journalism?? Whatever do you mean. Lunchtime O'Booze 123 (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

See related thread at WT:MOSCAPS. Short version: Journalism, by and large, follows a loose convention of capitalizing prepositions four words or longer, but particular publishers have their own house style with regard to shorter words like "as" or "of"; some prefer to never capitalize them, some to do so when they're adverbial or conjunctive, some only when they're conjunctive, etc. In newswriting, there's no single, consistent system. What the NYT does is different from what The Guardian does, in turn different from what the AP Stylebook uses. So, it really is not possible for MoS / WP to follow journalistic style; there is no identifiable style to follow.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

So no journalists ever use those style guides that are used as the basis for WP's MoS? Or does the answer to that involve the long version. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC) p.s. where does the A in And come from?

@Martinevans123: Probably requires a semi-long answer, which is kind of off-topic, so I'll collapse it.

Yakkety-yak:

I think most of them do, but only to answer questions not answered by a) their publisher's house style, or b) the AP, UPI, or other journalism style manual they're following. Only then will they usually turn to Chicago or Oxford/Hart's, or any other non-journo style guide; their own bosses are liable to give them hell if they do something outside "canonical" journo style. On the other side, an academic will consult, in descending order, the house style of the journal or other publisher they're writing for, the field-specific guide that applies (AMA, APA, MHRA, CSE, etc.), then a general one like Oxford/Hart's or Chicago, and probably dead last, if at all, a journalism one (unless they're writing a popularization piece for a magazine, of course). Most of the professional journalists I know own more than one style guide, but rarely open any of them except (in the US, anyway) AP, unless they have some kind of specialist "beat" and need ready reference to jargon handling (even then, they fit the jargon into the journo style framework). Of particular interest here: the marketing sector almost exclusively uses AP (or, outside N. Am., some other journo style guide) as well. So, it comes to pass that, on average, the marketing departments at record labels will capitalize titles (when they don't scream them in all-caps) closely following journo style. This affinity is probably inevitable because of the close relationship between news writing and press releases. Book publishing, which is what WP is doing an online version of, follows mostly Chicago (North Am.) and Oxford/Hart's (Commonwealth) style, plus Garner's (American, but published by Oxford), and some others that are not field-specific nor ivory-tower, then adopts topically specific conventions from specialist guides (AMA for medicine, etc.) when it doesn't conflict with normal writing/reading expectations; there's all kinds of specialist style WP ignores because it does confuse readers, or because two fields with equal "claim" to a topic have conflicting styles. If you read a lot of non-fiction, you'll see that the same is true of major book publishers; they're happy to do what ABA or APA says in a particular field, as long as the average reader will not be confused, in which case revert back to what the mainstream style guide says and let the specialists whine. Being international, we're following a mixed bag of N.Am. and Commonwealth conventions, but they're all in the same formal-but-not-excessively-academic register, which has little in common with news style, and WP is basically allergic to press releases (WP:PRIMARY, WP:COI, etc.). It's hard to find anything at all in MoS that is based on AP (or UPI, NYT, Guardian, etc.) Probably the only major influence they've had on MoS is at MOS:IDENTITY, because they were quicker to figure out how to refer to transgendered people in an even-handed way than any of the more formal style guides (and I don't know of any of those that have come to contradict journalism's handling of that, though some have not caught up). The usage dictionary aspects of journo style guides are pretty much the only part of them of regular relevance to encyclopedic writing, because they're usually more current than more academic guides, which are on a slower publication schedule in many cases (AP is annual, though I think it was 12 years between editions of NYT Style Manual), and the academic-leaning ones often don't have a usage dictionary anyway (the larger Oxford version does), but are about structure over vocabulary. Maybe our handling of terms like "African American", now without the hyphen, is also from news style, though some news publisher continue to hyphenate it when it's used as a compound adjective, the way the academic guides do. Our own article at Style guide needs an overhaul to draw these distinctions better. I actually wrote that, then lost it in a system crash and haven't had the heart yet to start over again; it was many hours' work. PS: The prepositions-in-song-titles conflict is particularly weird, because journo style is notorious for dropping capitalization that other style guides insist on; it's highly unusual for the tables to turn in this way, and is almost certainly an expediency thing – it saves journalists time looking up whether a particular usage is prepositional or not, for a whole set of four-letter, not just five-letter, words that are sometimes prepositional.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your careful answer. You certainly seem to know a great deal about now journalists work. It's a good job that we at Wilipedia don't have any "bosses" who are "liable to give us hell if we do something outside "canonical" house style." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I do; I was a media relations professional for about a decade, as well as a tertiary news editor. No one is being given hell here; proposals to move things in incorrect ways and elsewhere proposals to change MoS to do things supportable only with OR, are being opposed. There is no "boss" relationship, and sarcastic insinuations are not helpful.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

p.s. where does the A in And come from? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Martin: I want to hold my silence, but I can't. I don't know your disregard on part of speech. Is it for the sake of original idea of "artistry" based on mere publications? This troubles me, and the way that academics in the United States is heading troubles me more. If it happens, academics' lowering its standards to allow room for those who performed mediocrely would become a major political issue, especially in world politics. George Ho (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

  Apologies, George. I had thought my edit summary might have given my satirical intentions away. Please trouble yourself no more. I was just trying to make a point. It's not the end of the world (as bouffant UK political hopefuls might wish us to have it), it's just an upper case A. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

  The fact that most of your responses on this and relates pages are sarcastic commentary isn't helpful to productive discussion or to dispute resolution. WP:NOT#FACEBOOK. Please take this to heart. These talk pages don't exist to "score points" with snarky repartée.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

  Wasn't trying to "score points." Sorry to attempt irony. Thanks for the humourless scolding. I'll try and get my four letter capitals on Facebook. But please don't characterize "most of my responses on this and relates pages" as "sarcastic commentary" - I simply disagree with your meticulously constricted arguments which strike me as WP:OR. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

  My apologies, too. I know you were sarcastic, Martin. I didn't think it's that relevant anyways. Still, rules are rules. I still don't get your opposing lowercasing "like" while opposing uppercasing "As" other than rules don't fit... three of you here. As for you, SMcCandlish, if "As" in the title is a preposition, then is "We Know It" an object or something? A preposition is a word preceding an object and "express[ing] spatial or temporal relations" or thematic relations unless dictionary says otherwise. It's not even a verb or a noun. It doesn't describe the subject or object or action of the subject or modify the word of the action (i.e. verb). Is "We Know It" an object noun or a sentence or what? George Ho (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

  Prepositions work in multiple ways, and English syntax is very fluid. Please do not take a junior high / middle school approach to "sentence graphs". "Where you at?" has at as preposition in it, and there is no object.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

  Contrary to popular belief, I'm not actually on a four-letter-capitalisation-crusade. I think the L in "Someone Like You" should be upper case because it looks better (with "You" having only three letters). I think exceptions should be made in such cases as these if local consensus can be established. At least an article could then be consistent with itself. But some editors obviously think this would be the end of MoS as we know it. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a rationale we can't find any source anywhere, nor in any policy/guideline here, so, there's that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't you mean "that's that"? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

George Ho has invited me to comment. 'As' is a subordinating conjunction in 'as we know it' (it introduces a clause, not a noun phrase) and if that means it should be capitalised, so be it. Rothorpe (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Followup comment in response to question I wasn't pinged on: Martinevans123, re: 'Don't you mean "that's that"?' – No, that would be flippant. "So, there's that" is a common idiom, with multiple uses. I mean the one outlined here and here (the second also addresses "that's that" and its difference). Urban Dictionary also lists some hyperbolic senses that don't apply to something this mundane.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe we need some MoS policy advice on the use of "there's that"? (Now, that is flippant). Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC) p.s. where does the A in And come from?

Post-RM considerations for future similar RMs' rationales

Followup comment on the grammatical distinction: The fact is that while introductory sources on English grammar (pedagogical and remedial works for a general audience, not professional linguistics material) like to deliver generalities like "prepositions are always before nouns and subordinating conjunctions are always before clauses" and "as is always a conjunction and like is always a preposition", the fact of the matter is that it is not this simple. Linguists and proto-linguists have been arguing about this very matter, and specifically about these two words, quite literally for centuries (one of the dictionaries already cited covers this in summary form).

When the leading lexicographical organisation in the English-speaking world (in the world at all, really) says that both words have conjunctive and prepositional uses, and specifically defines the "used to refer to the function or character that someone or something has" usage (the one in question here) as prepositional, despite it not frequently being used before noun[ phrase]s in this sense, then WP is not really in a position, per WP:NOR, to contradict this, especially when other RS routinely are down-casing "as" in this construction. It's no accident than even the capitalisation-happy journalism sources use lower case for this more often than not. The headaches over as/like are probably why the four-letter rule was adopted in journalism so broadly, and why various news publishers like NYT also have rules to always lower-case as, as too short to bother capitalising, and because it takes too much writer/editor time to be 100% certain a use is prepositional with these words. It's just most expedient for them, under their tight news deadlines, to memorize "Like is up, as is down" and move on.

The dispute/confusion/transition arises when a clause becomes so fixed that it becomes mostly or entirely immutable and operates syntactically as a unit, and thus is parsed as if it were a noun phrase. That seems to be the case here; the entire expression "the end of x as we know it" is stock, with very few variations, also stock. You will not encounter it in randomly modified form, e.g "the finish of x as we were acclimated to it", etc. I was initially tempted to treat this as a subordinating use, too, but if the RS are not, and the question is perpetual even among academics, then I'm not in a position (at WP) to contradict them.

Anyway, given that the distinction, for this particular word, is blurred in the real word, the MOS:CAPS default of using lower case applies, even aside from any WP:COMMONNAME arguments one might want to try to advance but which are not really applicable to style matters or we would not have a style guideline and a separate titles policy that defers to the style guideline on style matters. In the end, I think this is a good "test case" against doing original research to "prove" a grammatical point when we already have top-flight sources telling us there is no real-world consensus on the question, and we should remember this next time this comes up at another RM discussion about as or like.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh well, "As You Like It." Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC) p.s. where does the A in And come from?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.yuppiepunk.org/2008/10/podcast-8-list-songs.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine). 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/20120205195817/http://www.remhq.com/albums.php to http://remhq.com/albums.php

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) 20:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Radio stations playing this song

I've heard that there were some radio stations who played this song in certain parts of North America.

• KXXR
• CFEX-FM
• KNDD
• WENZ
• KZJK

What else do you think should be in this list? Ask me then. RevinCBHatol (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Genre

What is/(are) the best genre/(s) to describe this song? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Martinevans123, It's nice of you to seek consensus but the IPs and sockpuppet accounts vandalizing this are evading a ban and are not going to listen to reason. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I guess edit summaries like this are a bit of a giveaway. I was unaware that this infobox field had been the focus of edit warring since at least 1 October last year. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)