Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles/Archive 2

Announcements

• I may have limited Internet access over the next two weeks, so please contact Mr. Stradivarius if I don't seem to be around. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• The poll will go live on September 15th and will take place on the mediation talk page. All non-poll discussion will be archived the day before, and the last stage will be the public announcements. (If all active parties agree, the poll may open before the 15th) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 07:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC) (updated 18:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC))

Per: "All non-poll discussion will be archived", I assume you mean that our !voters won't see the discussion that occured during the pre-poll stages. Am I correct about this? Thanks! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That's what I had in mind. I don't think there's a reason to actually hide it from public view, but just move all pre-poll discussion, including this, to an archive page. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 10:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought you meant, I agree 100%. Thanks. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I will archive the non-poll content of this page at the end of the day, and open/announce the poll early tomorrow (UTC). While the poll is running, discussion of the case can take place on my talk page. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 12:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Poll (draft) and discussion

The following poll text is a draft that is under construction. Please alter the text as you see fit, and note that there is a section after the poll text for discussing issues related to the poll text.

Background

This poll was created as the result of a mediation case at the center of a long-standing dispute. The purpose is to gauge current community consensus in regard to capitalising the definite article ("the") mid-sentence when referring to the band also known as the "Fab Four". The poll will run for 30 days, after which the results will be evaluated by Newyorkbrad.

Note

Previous attempts to resolve this controversy have included an agreement to minimise use of the band's name mid-sentence. Although this agreement resulted in a relative "truce" for a little over a year, the resulting formal mediation case shows that it did not ultimately resolve the issue.
More seriously, "minimisation" of mid-sentence usage can only be a definitive solution if it is interpreted as a mandatory ban on all mid-sentence usage of "The/the Beatles". During mediation, it was concluded that this would place an excessive restriction of language on a large number of articles. Such a restriction would necessitate far-reaching changes to Wikipedia's manual of style that are outside the scope of this poll.

Options

When the band's name is used mid-sentence as a noun:

• Lower-case – Use a lower-case definite article ("... the Beatles ...").
• Upper-case – Use an upper-case definite article ("... The Beatles ...").

Evidence for lower-case

• While both "BEATLES" and "THE BEATLES" are registered trademarks of Apple Corps Ltd, using "Beatles" mid-sentence as a noun requires a preceding definite article ("the") for the sake of grammar, but does not infringe on the trademarked names because Wikipedia is not using the name for the purpose of advertising or soliciting purchases of goods or services. As such, trademark law, and Apple's protected trademarks, do not in any way whatsoever affect Wikipedia's freedom to use whichever format of the band's name we prefer. Please see the following citation for clarification:

Our in-house style guide, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks states:

• "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'."

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Trademarks states:

• "Trademarks should be written in a way that follows standard English text formatting and capitalization rules."

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Capitalization states:

• "Standard English text formatting and capitalization rules apply to the names of bands and individual artists".

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) states that a lower-case definite article should be used in band names:

• "Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word 'the' should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g. 'Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues.'"

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Capitalization states:

• In band names, and titles of songs or albums, capitalize all words except:

• articles (an, a, the)

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters says:

• "Generally do not capitalize the definite article in the middle of a sentence."

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Flags#Inappropriate use:

• "For example, with an English flag next to him, Paul McCartney looks like an 'English singer-songwriter from Liverpool who was in the Beatles'; without the flag next to him, he looks like an 'English singer-songwriter from Liverpool who was in the Beatles'".

The Wikipedia Manual of Style says:

• "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." That was this version, which uses "the".

Our MoS is clear and consistent. Absent a compelling reason to ignore the advice from our in-house style guide we should follow standard English text formatting.

Wikipedia articles about bands with a definite article mid-sentence in their name almost exclusively use a lower-case definite article, including:

• Sly and the Family Stone, Derek and the Dominos, Country Joe and the Fish, Toad the Wet Sprocket, Big Head Todd and the Monsters, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, Jason & the Scorchers, Kid Creole and the Coconuts, Big Brother and the Holding Company, Mott the Hoople, Hootie & the Blowfish, Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Gary Lewis & the Playboys, Shep and the Limelites, Rage Against the Machine, Harold Melvin & the Blue Notes, Lori and the Chameleons, Joey Dee and the Starlighters, Martha Reeves and the Vandellas, Ziggy Marley and the Melody Makers, Kool & the Gang, Little Anthony and the Imperials, Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, Echo & the Bunnymen, Tommy James and the Shondells, Johnny and the Hurricanes, Gladys Knight & the Pips, Huey Lewis and the News, Gerry and the Pacemakers, KC and the Sunshine Band, Jay and the Americans, Freddie and the Dreamers, Maurice Williams and the Zodiacs, Georgie Fame and the Blue Flames, Billy J. Kramer and the Dakotas, Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch, Toots and the Maytals, Booker T. & the M.G.s, ? and the Mysterians

All known external style guides recommend using a lower-case definite article mid-sentence, including:

• The Oxford Style Guide (UK): "Beatles, the, a pop group, 1960-1970." (R. M. Ritter, 2003, p.633)
• The Times style and usage guide (UK) says: "Beatles, the, no need to cap the unless at the start of a sentence". (2003, p.24)
• The Guardian and Observer style guide (UK) says: "band names: lc the: the Beatles, the Killers, the The."
• The Chicago Manual of Style (16th edition, US) specifically uses "the Beatles" as an example and states: "A the preceding a name, even when part of the official title, is lowercased in running text." (2010, p.416)
• On page 92 of New Hart's Rules (Oxford, UK) there is a list of examples for the capitalization of names, one is "the Beatles", with a lower-cased definite article. New Hart's Rules also states: "Historians commonly impose minimal capitalisation on institutional references" and "minimise the use of capital initials where there is no detectable difference between the capitaized and the lower-case forms" and "overuse of capital initials is obtrusive, and can even confuse by suggesting false distinctions". (2005, p.90)
• Fowler's Modern English Usage (Oxford, UK), "a festival celebrating the music of the Beatles". (2004, p.293)
• Butcher's Copy-editing (Cambridge, UK) says "in a sentence the definite article should be lower-cased". (2006, p.241) Also in Butcher's: "too many capitals can be obtrusive and distracting for the reader." (p.126)
• The Duke University Style Guide (US) says: "Avoid unnecessary capitals."
• The UPI Style Book & Guide to Newswriting states: "Avoid unnecessary capitals." (Martin, Cook, 2004, p.40)
• From The Copyeditor's Handbook: "down style [lower-case] predominates in book publishing." (Einsohn, 2000, p.151)
• The Christian Writer's Manual of Style states: "The purpose of capitalisation is to show that a given word has a specialised or specific meaning rather than a general one ... avoid capitalisation whenever it is not needed for such purposes of specification". (Hudson, 2010, p.105)
• The Scout Association's style guide (UK) says: "the – Keep as lower case for bands (the Rolling Stones)."
• The Yahoo Style Guide says: "We recommend lowercasing 'the Beatles', except at the beginning of a sentence, for two main reasons: Reason No. 1: expedience. Lowercasing 'the' in every proper name makes life much easier. Reason No. 2: aesthetics. Lowercasing 'the' in every proper name also produces a consistent look—a look that, moreover, conforms to normal English usage. To the Yahoo editors, capitalizing 'the' in the middle of a sentence simply looks odd."

High-quality secondary sources printed in the UK by UK publishers using a lower-case definite article mid-sentence include:

• Cambridge University Press (Moore, 1997), Oxford University Press (Everett, 1999), Ashgate (Julien ed., 2008), Macmillan (Martin, 1997), Continuum (Womack, 2007) and Virgin Publishing Ltd. (Harry, 2000).

High-quality secondary sources printed in the US by US publishers using a lower-case definite article mid-sentence include:

• Harvard University Press (McKinney, 2003), State University of New York Press (Womack, 2006), University of Michigan Press (Austerlitz, 2007), University Press of Mississippi (Frontani, 2007), University of Illinois Press (Wiener, 1991), University Of Chicago Press (Bromell, 2002), University of California Press (Waksmen, 2009).

The highest-quality printed secondary sources (authors) who use a lower-case definite article mid-sentence include:

• Mark Lewisohn (considered the world's leading expert on the Beatles), Bill Harry (founder of Mersey Beat), Bob Spitz, Philip Norman, Hunter Davies, Walter Everett, Barry Miles and Jonathan Gould.

High-quality on-line secondary third-party sources that use a lower-case definite article throughout include:

• Harvard Business Review, The New Yorker, The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, The Detroit News, Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, Montgomery News, The Miami Herald, Denver Post, The Seattle Times, The Economist, The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Independant, The Liverpool Daily Post, Herald Sun, The Sault Star, Time, Details, Entertainment Weekly, People, Fortune, Reader's Digest, Entrepreneur, Oxford Dictionaries, Dictionary.com, Duke University Magazine, Bloomberg Businessweek, Forbes, the Atlantic, Blender, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, Wired, Billboard, Mojo, Vibe, Spin, Allmusic, MTV, Smithsonian, National Geographic, The Saturday Evening Post, The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, the White House.gov and the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

High-quality printed sources from the historical record which support use of a lower-case definite article mid-sentence include:

• The Montreal Gazette - Feb 19, 1964, The Palm Beach Post - Oct 8, 1964, St. Petersburg Times - Jun 13, 1965, The Milwaukee Sentinel - Oct 27, 1965, The Deseret News - Aug 5, 1966, The Milwaukee Journal - Aug 11, 1966, The Evening Independent - Aug 19, 1966, New Musical Express - 2 September 1967, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - Mar 13, 1969, The Palm Beach Post - Apr 10, 1970, The Milwaukee Journal - Oct 28, 1970, The Owosso Argus-Press - Jan 19, 1971, The Montreal Gazette - Feb 22, 1971.

Approximately 80% of the high-quality printed secondary sources used to source Wikipedia articles related to the Beatles and other bands use a lower-case definite article mid-sentence. The vast majority of WP:RS tend predominantly toward a lower-case "the" mid-sentence and there is an obvious existing practical consensus strongly favouring a lower-case definite article. Wikipedia should be consistent with the overwhelming global consensus represented in published books dealing with the Beatles and other bands currently used to source Wikipedia articles.

Click on "show" (far right) to uncollapse a list of 150 high-quality WP:RSs currently used to source Beatles articles on Wikipedia. All of the following sources use a lower-case definite article mid-sentence throughout.

Anderson, Jennifer Joline (2010). John Lennon: Legendary Musician & Beatle. Abdo Publishing Company. ISBN 978-1-60453-790-1. Austerlitz, Saul (2007). Money for Nothing: A History of the Music Video, from The Beatles to The White Stripes. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-7119-7520-5. Benitez, Vincent Perez (2010). The Words and Music of Paul McCartney: The Solo Years. Praeger. ISBN 978-0-313-34969-0. Bennahum, David (1991). The Beatles After the Break-Up: In Their Own Words. Omnibus Press. ISBN 978-0-7119-2558-8. Benson, Bruce Ellis (2003). The Improvisation of Musical Dialogue: A Phenomenology of Music. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-00932-4. Blaney, John (2005). John Lennon: Listen To This Book. Paper Jukebox. ISBN 978-0-9544528-1-0. Blecha, Peter (2004). Taboo Tunes: A History of Banned Bands & Censored Songs. Backbeat. ISBN 978-0-87930-792-9. Bogdanov, Vladimir; Woodstra, Chris; Erlewine, Stephen Thomas (2001). All Music Guide: The Experts Guide to the Best Recordings. Backbeat Books. ISBN 0-87930-627-0. Borack, Borack (2010). John Lennon: Life is What Happens. Krause Publications. ISBN 978-1440213915. Boyd, Pattie (2007). Wonderful Tonight. ISBN 978-0-307-40783-2. Brackett, Nathan; Hoard, Christian (2004). The New Rolling Stone Album Guide. Billboard. ISBN 0743201698. {{cite book}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Bramwell, Tony; Kingsland, Rosemary (2006). Magical Mystery Tours: My Life with the Beatles. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-0-312-33044-6. Bromell, Nicholas (2002). Tomorrow Never Knows: Rock and Psychedelics in the 1960s. University Of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226075624. Bronson, Fred (1992). The Billboard Book of Number One Hits (3rd revised ed.). Billboard Books. ISBN 978-0-8230-8298-8. Brown, Peter; Gaines, Steven (2002). The Love You Make: An Insider's Story of The Beatles. New American Library. ISBN 978-0-451-20735-7. Buk, Askold (1996). "Strum Together". Guitar World: Acoustic (17). Cadogan, Patrick (2008). The Revolutionary Artist: John Lennon's Radical Years. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 978-1-4357-1863-0. Campbell, Michael (2008). Popular Music in America: The Beat Goes On. East Windsor, CT: Wadsworth. ISBN 978-0-495-50530-3. Carlin, Peter Ames (2009). Paul McCartney: A Life. Touchstone. ISBN 978-1-4165-6209-2. Coleman, Ray (1984). John Winston Lennon. Sidjwick & Jackson. ISBN 978-0-283-98942-1. Cohen, Sara (2007). Decline, Renewal and the City in Popular Music Culture: Beyond the Beatles. Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 978-0754632436. Coleman, Ray (1984). John Ono Lennon: Volume 2 1967–1980. Sidgwick & Jackson. ISBN 978-0-283-99082-3. Coleman, Ray (1992). Lennon: The Definitive Biography. Harper. ISBN 0-06-098608-5. Cook, Nicholas (2009). The Cambridge Companion to Recorded Music. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521684613. Dailey, Forrest (2003). The Fifth Magician: The Great Beatles Impostor Theory. AuthorHouse. ISBN 978-1410759887. Davies, Hunter (1968). The Beatles (Revised 2009 ed.). New York & London: W.W. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-33874-4. Davis, Todd F.; Womack, Kenneth (2006). Reading the Beatles: Cultural Studies, Literary Criticism, And the Fab Four. State University of New York Press. ISBN 978-0791467169. DeRogatis, Jim; Kot, Greg (2010). The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones: Sound Opinions on the Great Rock 'n' Roll Rivalry. Voyageur Press. ISBN 978-0760338131. DeWitt, Howard A. (2000). The Beatles: Untold Tales. Kendall Hunt Pub Co. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isnb= ignored (|isbn= suggested) (help) Doggett, Peter (2009). You Never Give Me Your Money: The Beatles After the Breakup (1st US hardcover ed.). Harper. ISBN 978-0-06-177446-1. Dowlding, William J. (1989). Beatlesongs. Touchstone. ISBN 978-0671682293. Edmondson, Jacqueline (2010). John Lennon: A Biography. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-313-37938-3. Emerick, Geoff; Massey, Howard (2006). Here, There and Everywhere: My Life Recording the Music of The Beatles. Gotham. ISBN 978-1-59240-269-4. Epstein, Brian (1998) [1965]. A Cellarful of Noise. ISBN 978-0671011963. Everett, Walter (1999). The Beatles as Musicians: Revolver through the Anthology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-512941-0. Everett, Walter (2001). The Beatles As Musicians: The Quarry Men through Rubber Soul. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-514105-4. Fisher, Marc (2007). Something in the Air. New York: Random House. ISBN 978-0-375-50907-0. Frontani, Michael R (2007). The Beatles: Image and the Media. University Press of Mississippi. ISBN 1-57806-965-3. Gambaccini, Paul (1996). The McCartney Interviews: After the Break-Up (2 ed.). Omnibus Press. ISBN 978-0-7119-5494-6. George-Warren, Holly (editor) (2001). The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll (2005 revised and updated ed.). Fireside. ISBN 978-0-7432-9201-6. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help) Giuliano, Geoffrey (1997). Dark Horse: The Life and Art of George Harrison (Revised ed.). New York: Da Capo Press. ISBN 0-306-80747-5. Giuliano, Geoffrey (1999). Glass Onion: The Beatles In Their Own Words. Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0306808951. Goldberg, Philip (2010). American Veda: From Emerson and the Beatles to Yoga and Meditation. Doubleday. ISBN 978-0-385-52134-5. Goldman, Albert Harry (2001). The Lives of John Lennon. Chicago Review Press. ISBN 978-1-55652-399-1. Gould, Jonathan (2007). Can't Buy Me Love: The Beatles, Britain and America (First Paperback ed.). Three Rivers Press. ISBN 978-0-307-35338-2. Gracen, Jorie B. (2000). Paul McCartney: I Saw Him Standing There. Watson-Guptill Publications. ISBN 978-0-8230-8372-5. Graff, Gary (January 2000). "Yesterday & Today". Guitar World. 20 (1).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) Greene, Joshua M. (2008). Here Comes the Sun: The Spiritual and Musical Journey of George Harrison. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-12780-3. Grelsamer, Ronald P. (2010). Into The Sky With Diamonds: The Beatles And The Race To The Moon In The Psychedelic '60s. AuthorHouse. ISBN 978-1452070537. Havers, Richard (2010). The Beatles: The Days of Their Life. Chartwell Books, Inc\isbn=978-0785827016. Huntley, Elliot J (2004). Mystical One: George Harrison: After the Break-up of the Beatles. Guernica Editions. ISBN 1-55071-197-0. Harrison, George (1980). I, Me, Mine. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-671-42787-3. Harry, Bill (2000a). The Beatles Encyclopedia: Revised and Updated. Virgin. ISBN 978-0-7535-0481-9. Harry, Bill (2003). The George Harrison Encyclopedia. Virgin. ISBN 978-0-7535-0822-0. Harry, Bill (2000b). The John Lennon Encyclopedia. Virgin. ISBN 978-0-7535-0404-8. Harry, Bill (2002). The Paul McCartney Encyclopedia. Virgin. ISBN 978-0-7535-0716-2. Harry, Bill (1985). The Book Of Beatle Lists. Poole, Dorset: Javelin. ISBN 0-7137-1521-9. Hertsgaard, Mark (1995). A Day in the Life:The Music and Artistry of the Beatles. ISBN 0-385-31517-1. Howard, David N. (2004). Sonic Alchemy: Visionary Music Producers and Their Maverick Recordings. Hal Leonard Corporation. ISBN 0-634-05560-7. Ilson, Bernie (2008). Sundays with Sullivan: How the Ed Sullivan Show Brought Elvis, the Beatles, and Culture to America. Taylor Trade Publishing. ISBN 978-1589793903. Inglis, Ian (2000). The Beatles, Popular Music and Society: A Thousand Voices. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0312222369. Inglis, Ian (2010). The Words and Music of George Harrison. Praeger. ISBN 978-0313375323. Jisi, Chris (October 2005). "He Can Work It Out". Bass Player. 16 (10). Julien, Olivier (ed.). Sgt. Pepper and the Beatles: It Was Forty Years Ago Today. Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-754-66708-7. Kane, Larry (2003). Ticket To Ride: Inside the Beatles' 1964 Tour that Changed the World. Running Press. ISBN 978-0762415922. Kaufman, Will; Macpherson, Heidi, eds. (2005). Britain and the Americas: Culture, Politics, and History. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1851094318. Kastan, David Scott (2006). Oxford encyclopedia of British literature. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-516921-8. Kirchherr, Astrid (1999). Hamburg Days. Guildford, Surrey: Genesis Publications. ISBN 978-0-904351-73-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Kruse, Robert J. II (2009). "Geographies of John and Yoko's 1969 Campaign for Peace: An Intersection of Celebrity, Space, Art,and Activism". In Johansson, Ola, Bell, Thomas L., editors (ed.). Sound, Society and the Geography of Popular Music. Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-7577-8. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link) Kukla, Tina (2003). The Beatles: Live at 12 Cold Creek Street. Virtualbookworm.com Publishing. ISBN 978-1589393905. Larkin, Colin (1998). All Time Top 1000 Albums: The World's Most Authoritative Guide to the Perfect Record Collection. Virgin. ISBN 978-0-7535-0258-7. Lawrence, Ken (2005). John Lennon: In His Own Words. Andrews McMeel Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7407-5477-7. Lawrence, Robb (2009). The Modern Era of the Les Paul Legacy: 1968–2008. Hal Leonard. ISBN 978-1-4234-5531-8. Lavezzoli, Peter (2006). The Dawn of Indian Music in the West: Bhairavi. New York and London: Continuum. ISBN 978-0-8264-1815-9. Leng, Simon (2006). While My Guitar Gently Weeps: The Music of George Harrison (Revised ed.). Hal Leonard. ISBN 1-4234-0609-5. Lennon, Cynthia (2005). John. New York: Crown Publishers. ISBN 978-0-307-33855-6. Lennon, Cynthia (1978). A Twist of Lennon. Avon. ISBN 978-0-380-45450-1. Levy, Joe (editor) (2005). Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time (First Paperback ed.). Wenner Books. ISBN 978-1-932958-61-4. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help) Lewis, Roger (1995). The Life and Death of Peter Sellers. London: Arrow. ISBN 978-0-09-974700-0. Lewisohn, Mark (1992). The Complete Beatles Chronicle:The Definitive Day-By-Day Guide To The Beatles' Entire Career (2010 ed.). Chicago Review Press. ISBN 978-1-56976-534-0. Lewisohn, Mark (1988). The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions. New York: Harmony. ISBN 978-0-517-57066-1. Lewisohn, Mark (editor) (2002). Wingspan: Paul McCartney's Band on the Run. Little, Brown. ISBN 978-0-316-86032-1. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help) Loker, Bradford E. (2009). History with the Beatles. Dog Ear Publishing. ISBN 978-1608440399. Mackenzie, Maxwell (1998). The Beatles: Every Little Thing. It Books. ISBN 978-0380796984. Manning, Sean (2008). Rock and Roll Cagematch: Music's Greatest Rivalries, Decided. Crown Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-307-39627-3. Mansfield, Ken (2007). The White Book. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. ISBN 978-1-59555-101-6. Martin, George; Hornsby, Jeremy (1994). All You Need Is Ears. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-0-312-11482-4. Martin, George (1994). Summer of love: The making of Sgt. Pepper. ISBN 978-0-333-60398-7. Marsh, Dave (2007). The Beatles' Second Album. Rodale Books. ISBN 978-1594864261. McCartney, Paul; Mitchell, Adrian (editor) (2001). Blackbird singing: Poems and Lyrics 1965–1999. W.W. Norton and Company Inc. ISBN 978-0-393-02049-6. {{cite book}}: |first2= has generic name (help) McGee, Garry (2003). Band on the Run: A History of Paul McCartney and Wings. Taylor Trade. ISBN 978-0-87833-304-2. McKinney, Devin (2003). Magic Circles: The Beatles in Dream and History. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674012028. Miles, Barry (1997). Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now (1st Hardcover ed.). Henry Holt & Company. ISBN 978-0-8050-5248-0. Miles, Barry (2009). The British Invasion: The Music, the Times, the Era. Sterling. ISBN 978-1402769764. Miles, Barry (2002). In the Sixties. Jonathan Cape. ISBN 978-0-224-06240-4. Molenda, Michael (November 2005). "Here, There, and Everywhere". Guitar Player. 39 (11).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) Moore, Allan F. (1997). The Beatles: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-57484-6. Mulhern, Tom (July 1990). "Paul McCartney". Guitar Player. 24, No.7 (246).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) Mulligan, Kate Siobhan (2010). The Beatles: A Musical Biography (Story of the Band). Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-37686-3. Norman, Philip (1996). Shout!: The Beatles in Their Generation. New York: Fireside. ISBN 978-0-684-43254-0. Norman, Philip (2008). John Lennon: The Life. New York: Ecco/HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-075401-3. O'Donnell, Jim (2006). The Day John Met Paul: An Hour-by-Hour Account of How the Beatles Began. Routledge. ISBN 978-1452070537. Pawlowski, Gareth L. (1990). How they became the Beatles. Plume. ISBN 978-0452265066. Patterson, R. Gary (1998). The Walrus Was Paul: The Great Beatle Death Clues. Touchstone. ISBN 978-0684850627. Perone, James E. (2008). Mods, rockers, and the music of the British invasion. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0275998606. Peebles, Andy; Lennon, John; Ono, Yoko (1981). The Lennon tapes: John Lennon and Yoko Ono in conversation with Andy Peebles, 6 December 1980. British Broadcasting Corporation. ISBN 978-0-563-17944-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Reeve, Andru J. (2004). Turn Me On, Dead Man: The Beatles and the "Paul Is Dead" Hoax. AuthorHouse. ISBN 978-1418482947. Raymer, Miles (2010). How to Analyze the Music of Paul McCartney. Abdo Publishing Company. ISBN 978-1-61613-531-7. Riley, Tim (2011). Lennon: The Man, the Myth, the Music—The Definitive Life. New York: Hyperion/HarperCollins. ISBN 978-1-4013-2452-0. Riley, Tim (2001). Tell Me Why: A Beatles Commentary. Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-306-81120-3. Roberts, David (editor) (2005). British Hit Singles & Albums (18 ed.). Guinness World Records Limited. ISBN 978-1-904994-00-8. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help) Rodriguez, Robert (2010). Fab Four FAQ 2.0: The Beatles' Solo Years, 1970–1980. New York: Backbeat. ISBN 978-0-87930-968-8. Rosen, Craig (1996). The Billboard Book of Number One Albums. Billboard. ISBN 978-0-823-07586-7. {{cite book}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Rots, Martin (2011). The Beatles: Behind Closed Doors. CreateSpace. ISBN 978-1468057225. Rowley, David (2008). Help! 50 Songwriting, Recording and Career Tips used by the Beatles. Matador. ISBN 978-1-906221-37-9. Ruhlmann, William (2004). Breaking Records. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-94305-5. Ryan, David Stuart (1982). John Lennon's Secret: A Biography. Kozmik Press. ISBN 978-0-905116-08-2. Sandford, Christopher (2006). McCartney. Carroll & Graf. ISBN 978-0-7867-1614-2. Sawyers, June Skinner (editor) (2006). Read the Beatles: Classic and New Writings on the Beatles, Their Legacy, and Why They Still Matter. Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-303732-3. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help) Schaffner, Nicholas (1977). The Beatles Forever. Harrisburg: Cameron House. ISBN 0-8117-0225-1. Schaffner, Nicholas (1980). The Boys from Liverpool: John, Paul, George, and Ringo. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 0-416-30661-6. Seaman, Frederic (1991). The Last Days of John Lennon. Birch Lane Press. ISBN 1-55972-084-0. Shapiro, Marc (2002). Behind Sad Eyes: The Life of George Harrison. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0-312-30993-7. Sharp, Ken (2011). Starting Over: The Making of John Lennon and Yoko Ono's Double Fantasy. MTV Books. ISBN 978-1439103012. Sheff, David; Golson, G. Barry (editor) (1981). The Playboy Interviews with John Lennon & Yoko Ono. Playboy Press. ISBN 0-87223-705-2. {{cite book}}: |first2= has generic name (help) Schneider, Matthew (2008). The Long and Winding Road from Blake to the Beatles. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1403984890. Sounes, Howard (2010). Fab: An Intimate Life of Paul McCartney. Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-306-81783-0. Spignesi, Stephen J.; Lewis, Michael (2009). 100 Best Beatles Songs: A Passionate Fan's Guide. Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers. ISBN 978-1579128425. Spitz, Bob (2005). The Beatles: The Biography. Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 978-0-316-80352-6. Spitz, Bob (2007). Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!: The Beatles, Beatlemania, and the Music that Changed the World. Little, Brown Books for Young Readers. ISBN 978-0316115551. Spizer, Bruce (2005). The Beatles Solo on Apple Records. 498 Productions, LLC. ISBN 978-0966264951. Stark, Steven D. (2006). Meet the Beatles: A Cultural History of the Band That Shook Youth, Gender, and the World. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-000893-2. Taylor, Derek (1987). It Was Twenty Years Ago Today. Fireside. ISBN 978-0671642013. Tillery, Gary (2010). The Cynical Idealist: A Spiritual Biography of John Lennon. Quest Books. ISBN 978-0-8356-0875-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |rer= ignored (help) Turner, Steve (15 April 2006). The Gospel according to the Beatles. Westminster John Knox. ISBN 978-0-664-22983-2. Turner, Steve (2005). A Hard Day's Write: The Stories Behind Every Beatles Song (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Paperbacks. ISBN 0-06-084409-4. Unterberger, Richie (2006). The unreleased Beatles: music & film. Hal Leonard. ISBN 978-0-87930-892-6. Unterberger, Richie (2002). Turn! Turn! Turn!: The '60s Folk-rock Revolution. Backbeat Books. ISBN 0-87930-703-X. Urish, Ben; Bielen, Ken (2007). The Words and Music of John Lennon. Praeger. ISBN 978-0275991807. Wenner, Jann; George-Warren, Holly (editor) (2000). Lennon Remembers. Verso. ISBN 1-85984-600-9. {{cite book}}: |first2= has generic name (help) Wentzel, Jim (2001). The Beatles. Rosen Central. ISBN 978-0823935260. Wiener, Jon (1991). Come Together. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-06131-8. Wimmer, Teresa (2008). The Beatles: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Creative Co. ISBN 978-1583416518. Winn, John C. (2008). Way Beyond Compare: The Beatles' Recorded Legacy, Volume One, 1957–1965. New York: Three Rivers Press. ISBN 978-0-307-45157-6. Winn, John C. (2009). That Magic Feeling: The Beatles' Recorded Legacy, Volume Two, 1966–1970. New York: Three Rivers Press. ISBN 978-0-307-45239-9. Womack, Kenneth; Davis, Todd, eds. (2006). Reading the Beatles: Cultural Studies, Literary Criticism, And the Fab Four. State University of New York Press. ISBN 978-0791467169. Womack, Kenneth (2009). The Cambridge Companion to the Beatles. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521689762. Womack, Kenneth (2007). Long and Winding Roads: The Evolving Artistry of the Beatles. London & New York: Continuum. ISBN 978-0-8264-1746-6. Zeisler, Andi (2008). Feminism and Pop Culture: Seal Studies. Seal Press. ISBN 978-1580052375.

Click on "show" (far right) to uncollapse a list of 100 high-quality printed secondary sources currently used to source Wikipedia articles which use a lower-case definite article mid-sentence throughout.

Ashcroft, Linda (1997). Wild Child: Life with Jim Morrison. Hodder & Stoughton. ISBN 978-0-340-68498-6. Auslander, Philip (2006). Performing Glam Rock: Gender and Theatricality in Popular Music. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0472068685. Bayles, Martha (1994). Hole in Our Soul: Loss of Beauty and Meaning in American Popular Music. New York: Free Press. ISBN 0-02-901962-1. Bellman, Jonathan. (1997). The Exotic In Western Music. Northeastern Publishing. p. 351. ISBN 1-55553-319-1. Blake, Mark (2008). Comfortably Numb—The Inside Story of Pink Floyd. Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-306-81752-6. Bockris, Victor (1992). Keith Richards – The Biography. Poseidon Press. ISBN 0-671-70061-8. Bogdanov, Vladimir; Woodstra, Chris; Erlewine, Stephen Thomas, eds. (2001). All Music Guide: The Definitive Guide To Popular Music, 4th Edition. Backbeat Books. ISBN 978-0879306274. Booth, Stanley (2000). The True Adventures of The Rolling Stones (2nd edition). A Capella Books. ISBN 1-55652-400-5. Booth, Stanley (1995). Keith: Standing in the Shadows. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0-312-11841-4. Bronson, Fred (1992). Weiler, Fred (ed.). The Billboard Book of Number One Hits (3rd revised ed.). Billboard Books. ISBN 978-0-8230-8298-8. Brown, Pat (2001). The Guide to United States Popular Culture. Minneapolis, MN: Popular Press. ISBN 0-87972-821-3. Brunning, Bob (1986). Blues: The British Connection. Helter Skelter. ISBN 1-900924-41-2. Bukszpan, Daniel (2003). The Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal. New York, NY: Barnes & Noble. ISBN 0-7607-4218-9. Carlin, Peter Ames (2006). Catch a Wave: The Rise, Fall, & Redemption of the Beach Boys' Brian Wilson. Rodale Books (New York). ISBN 978-1-59486-320-2. Chatterton, Mark (2001). U2: The Complete Encyclopedia. London: Firefly Publishing. ISBN 0-946719-41-1. Cope, Andrew L. (2010). Black Sabbath and the Rise of Heavy Metal Music. Aldershot: Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-6881-7. Creswell, Toby (2006). 1001 Songs: The Great Songs of All Time and the Artists, Stories and Secrets Behind Them. Da Capo Press. ISBN 1-56025-915-9. Davis, Stephen (2005). Jim Morrsion: Life, Death, Legend. New York: Gotham Books. ISBN 978-1-59240-099-7. Davis, Erik (2005). Led Zeppelin IV. New York, NY: Continuum. ISBN 0-8264-1658-6. Davis, Stephen (1985). Hammer of the Gods: The Led Zeppelin Saga. London: Pan. ISBN 0-330-34287-8. Dean, Maury (2003). Rock 'n' Roll Gold Rush: A Singles Un-Cyclopedia. Algora Publishing. ISBN 0-87586-207-1. Dimartino, Dave (1994). Singer-Songwriters: Pop Music's Performer-Composers, from A to Zevon. Billboard Books. ISBN 0-8230-7629-6. Densmore, John (1990). Riders on the Storm: My Life with Jim Morrison and the Doors. Delacorte Press. ISBN 978-0-385-30033-9. DeRogatis (2003). Turn On Your Mind: Four Decades of Great Psychedelic Rock. Hal Leonard. ISBN 0-634-05548-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |fisrt= ignored (help) DeRogatis, Jim. Da Capo Press. ISBN 0-306-81271-1. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Text "title-Milk it!: collected musings on the alternative music explosion of the 90s" ignored (help) di Perna, Alan (2002). "Mysterious Ways". In Kitts, Jeff; Tolinski, Brad (eds.). Guitar World Presents: Pink Floyd. Hal Leonard. ISBN 978-0-7546-6708-7. Einarson, John (2005). Mr. Tambourine Man: The Life and Legacy of the Byrds' Gene Clark. Backbeat Books. ISBN 0-87930-793-5. Fast, Susan (2001). In the Houses of the Holy: Led Zeppelin and the Power of Rock Music. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-514723-5. Fast, Susan (2011). Led Zeppelin (British Rock Group). London: Encyclopædia Britannica. ISBN 0-19-514723-5. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) Fitch, Vernon (2005). The Pink Floyd Encyclopedia (Third ed.). Collector's Guide Publishing. ISBN 978-1-894959-24-7. Fitch, Vernon (2001). Pink Floyd: The Press Reports 1966–1983. Collector's Guide Publishing Inc. ISBN 978-1-896522-72-2. Flanagan, Bill (1995). U2 at the End of the World. New York: Delacorte Press. ISBN 0-385-31154-0. Flippo, Chet (1985). On the Road With the Rolling Stones. Doubleday/Dolphin. ISBN 0-385-19374-2. Forget, Thomas (2003). The Rolling Stones. Rosen Central. ISBN 0-8239-3644-9. Fyfe, Andy (2003). When the Levee Breaks: The Making of Led Zeppelin IV. Chicago, IL: Chicago Review Press. ISBN 1-55652-508-7. George-Warren, Holly, ed. (2001). The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll (2005 revised and updated ed.). Fireside. ISBN 978-0-7432-9201-6. Greenfield, Robert (1981). The Rolling Stone Interviews – Keith Richards. New York: St. Martin's Press/Rolling Stone Press. ISBN 0-312-68954-3. Greenfield, Robert (1974). S.T.P.: A Journey Through America with the Rolling Stones. {{cite book}}: Text "ISBN 0-306-81199-5" ignored (help) Grossman, Perry (2002). "Alternative rock". St. James Encyclopedia of Pop Culture 2002. Gale Group. ISBN 1-55862-400-7. Gulla, Bob (2001). Guitar Gods: The 25 Players Who Made Rock History. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-313-35806-0. Harris, John (2005). The Dark Side of the Moon (First Hardcover ed.). Da Capo. ISBN 978-0-306-81342-9. Heckstall-Smith, Dick (2004). The safest place in the world: A personal history of British rhythm and blues. Clear Books. ISBN 0-7043-2696-5. Hector, James (1995). The complete guide to the music of the Rolling Stones. London: Omnibus. ISBN 0-7119-4303-6. Hoffmann, Frank (2004). Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound (2nd ed.). Routledge. ISBN 0-415-93835-X. Hopkins, Jerry; Sugerman, Danny (1980). No One Here Gets Out Alive. New York: Warner Books. ISBN 978-0-446-97133-1. Huxley, Martin (1996). AC/DC: The World's Heaviest Rock. Lightning Source Inc. ISBN 0-312-30220-7. Jagger, Mick (2003). According to he Rolling Stones. Chronicle Books. ISBN 0-8118-4060-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Kitts, Jeff; Tolinski, Brad, eds. (2002). Guitar World Presents: Pink Floyd. Hal Leonard. ISBN 978-0-7546-6708-7. Kitts, Thomas M. (2007). Ray Davies: Not Like Everybody Else. Routledge. ISBN 978-0415977685. Kitts, Jeff. (2002). Guitar World Presents the 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time. Hal Leonard. ISBN 0-634-04619-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Kubernik, Harvey (2006). Hollywood Shack Job: Rock Music in Film and on Your Screen. University of New Mexico Press. ISBN 0-8263-3542-X. Lambert, Philip (2007). Inside the Music of Brian Wilson: the songs, sounds and influences of the Beach Boys' founding genius. Continuum. ISBN 0826418767. Lazar, Zachary (2008). Sway. Little Brown. ISBN 0-316-11309-3. Luft, Eric V. D. (2009). Die at the Right Time!: A Subjective Cultural History of the American Sixties. Gegensatz Press. ISBN 0-9655179-2-6. Manning, Toby (2006). The Rough Guide to Pink Floyd (First ed.). Rough Guides. ISBN 978-1-84353-575-1. Manzarek, Ray (1998). Light My Fire: My Life With The Doors. New York: Putnam. ISBN 978-0-399-14399-1. Marcus, Greil, ed. (2007). Stranded: Rock and Roll for a Desert Island. Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0306815324. Marcus, Greil (1997). The Dustbin Of History. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-21858-2. Mason, Nick (2005) [2004]. Dodd, Philip (ed.). Inside Out – A Personal History of Pink Floyd (Paperback ed.). Phoenix. ISBN 978-0-7538-1906-7. Menck, Ric (2007). The Notorious Byrd Brothers (33⅓ series). Continuum Books. ISBN 0-8264-1717-5. Miller, Jim (1980). The Rolling Stone illustrated history of rock & roll : the definitive history of the most important artists and their music. New York: Random House. ISBN 0-679-73728-6. Oldham, Andrew Loog (2000). Stoned. St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 0-312-27094-1. Olsen, Brad (2007). Sacred Places Europe: 108 Destinations. San Francisco: CCC Publishing. ISBN 978-1-888729-12-2. Palmer, Robert (1995). Rock & Roll: An Unruly History. Harmony. ISBN 0-517-70050-6. Paytress, Mark (2003). Rolling Stones : off the record. London ; New York: Omnibus. ISBN 0-7119-8869-2. Phelge, James (2000). Nankering with the Stones. ISBN 1-55652-373-4. Povey, Glenn (2008) [2007]. Echoes: The Complete History of Pink Floyd. Mind Head Publishing. ISBN 978-0-9554624-1-2. Povey, Glen; Russell, Ian (1997). Pink Floyd: in the flesh, the complete performance history (1st US paperback ed.). St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-0-9554624-0-5. Prown, Pete; Newquist, H. P.; Eiche, Jon F. (1997). Legends of Rock Guitar: The Essential Reference of Rock's Greatest Guitarists. Milwaukee, WI: H.Leonard. ISBN 0-7935-4042-9. Reisch, George A, ed. (2007). Pink Floyd and Philosophy: Careful with that Axiom, Eugene!. Open Court. ISBN 978-0-8126-9636-3. Reynolds, Simon (2006). Rip It Up and Start Again: Postpunk 1978–1984. New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-303672-6. Richards, Keith (2010). Life. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 978-0-297-85439-5. Roberts, David, ed. (2005). British Hit Singles & Albums (18 ed.). Guinness World Records Limited. ISBN 978-1-904994-00-8. Rielly, Edward J. (2003). The 1960s. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 0-313-31261-3. Rogan, Johnny (1998). The Byrds: Timeless Flight Revisited. Rogan House. ISBN 0-9529540-1-X. Rounds, Dwight (2007). The Year the Music Died: 1964–1972. Bridgeway Books. ISBN 1-933538-69-4. Rosen, Craig (1996). Lukas, Paul (ed.). The Billboard Book of Number One Albums. ISBN 978-0-8230-7586-7. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) Sanchez, Tony (1996). Up and down with the Rolling Stones. New York: Da Capo. ISBN 0-306-80711-4. Sandford, Christopher (2012). The Rolling Stones. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0857201034. Schaffner, Nicholas (1991). Saucerful of Secrets (First ed.). Sidgwick & Jackson. ISBN 978-0-283-06127-1. Scarfe, Gerald (2010). The Making of Pink Floyd: The Wall (1st US paperback ed.). Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-306-81997-1. Schumacher, Michael (2003). Crossroads: The Life and Music of Eric Clapton. Citadel Press. ISBN 0-8065-2466-9. Simmons, Sylvie (December 1999). "Pink Floyd: The Making of The Wall". Mojo Magazine. 73. Emap Metro. Smith, Chris (2009). 101 Albums That Changed Popular Music. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-537371-5. Spitz, Marc (2011). Jagger: Rebel, Rock Star, Rambler, Rogue. Gotham Books. ISBN 978-1-59240-655-5. Straw, Will (1990). Simon Frith and Andrew Goodwin, eds (ed.). On Record: Rock, Pop and the Written Word. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-05306-4. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help) Thompson, Dave (2004). Smoke on the Water: The Deep Purple Story. Toronto, Ontario: ECW Press. ISBN 1-55022-618-5. Unterberger, Richie (2002). Turn! Turn! Turn!: The '60s Folk-Rock Revolution. Backbeat Books. ISBN 0-87930-703-X. Unterberger, Richie (2003). Eight Miles High: Folk-Rock's Flight from Haight-Ashbury to Woodstock. Backbeat Books. ISBN 0-87930-743-9. Unterberger, Richie. (1999). Music USA: The Rough Guide. Rough Guides. ISBN 1-85828-421-X. Wadhams, Wayne. (2001). Inside the Hits: The Seduction of a Rock and Roll Generation. Berklee Press. ISBN 0-634-01430-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Waksman, Steve (2001). Instruments of Desire: the Electric Guitar and the Shaping of Musical Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-00547-3. Waksman, Steve (2009). This Ain't the Summer of Love: Conflict and Crossover in Heavy Metal and Punk. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-25310-0. Wall, Mick (2009). When Giants Walked the Earth: A Biography of Led Zeppelin. London: Orion. ISBN 978-1-4091-0319-6. Walser, Robert (1993). Running with the Devil: Power, Gender, and Madness in Heavy Metal Music. New York, NY: Wesleyan University Press. ISBN 0-8195-6260-2. Watkinson, Mike; Anderson, Pete (2001). Crazy Diamond: Syd Barrett & the Dawn of Pink Floyd (First ed.). Omnibus Press. ISBN 978-0-7119-2397-3. Watts, Michael (1996) [1971]. "Pink's muddled Meddle". In MacDonald, Bruno (ed.). Pink Floyd: through the eyes of ... the band, its fans, friends, and foes. Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-306-80780-0. Weisbard, Eric (2004). This Is Pop: In Search of the Elusive at Experience Music Project. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674013216. Welch, Chris (1994). Led Zeppelin. London: Orion. ISBN 1-85797-930-3. Wyman, Bill (2002). Rolling With the Stones. DK Publishing. ISBN 0-7894-9998-3. Wyman, Bill. (1990). Stone Alone: The Story of a Rock 'n' Roll Band. Da Capo Press. ISBN 0-670-82894-7. Yorke, Ritchie (1993). Led Zeppelin: The Definitive Biography. Novato, CA: Underwood–Miller. ISBN 0-88733-177-7.

Click on "show" (far right) to uncollapse a list of 60 high-quality primary sources to support a lower-case definite article mid-sentence throughout.

From the Beatles' official website: Please Please Me With The Beatles A Hard Day's Night Beatles For Sale the White Album Yellow Submarine The official John Lennon website, hosted by EMI Group Limited. A hand-written letter by Lennon signed by all four on which Lennon wrote "the Beatles". A piece of paper signed by all four on which Paul McCartney wrote "the Beatles". A piece of hotel stationary using "the Beatles" in McCartney's hand, signed by all four. A piece of bedding signed by all four on which Harrison signed: "the Beatles". A piece of paper signed "the Beatles" in McCartney's hand, signed by all four, dated 7 February 1963. An autograph album page signed "the Beatles" in McCartney's hand, 18 August 1963. A 1963 letter signed "the Beatles" in McCartney's hand, also signed by the other three. A signed napkin (1963) and an album cover (1964) in McCartney's hand using "the Beatles". A postcard signed by all four using "the", 7 February 1964. A a piece of paper dated 1964 signed by all four, Lennon wrote: "the Beatles". A letter dated 1969, signed by Lennon, Harrison and Starr which uses a lower-case definite article. A hand-written letter by Lennon, dated March 1970, from page 351 of the Beatles Anthology (2000), which uses a lower-case definite article both times the band is mentioned in running prose. A hand-written letter by McCartney, dated April 1970, from page 352 of the Beatles Anthology (2000), which uses a lower-case definite article when using the band's name in running prose. The "Ticket to Ride"/"Yes it Is" 45. The "I Feel Fine"/She's A Woman" 45. The "Strawberry Fields Forever"/"Penny Lane" 45 which uses a lower-case definite article. The "We Can Work It Out"/"Day Tripper" 45 which uses a lower-case definite article. The "Paperback Writer"/"Rain" 45 which uses a lower-case definite article. The "Yellow Submarine" EP which uses a lower-case definite article. The Beatles Singles Badge Collection which uses a lower-case defintite article. The "Yesterday"/"I Should Have Known Better" single which uses a lower-case definite article. The Rock n Roll Music LP which uses "the". Many examples from the historical record omit "the" altogether, suggesting it is not integral enough to be capitalised: Beatles For Sale and the two EP's of the same name (the original LP liner notes written by Derek Taylor use "the Beatles" thoughout) Beatles '65 Beatles VI The Sgt. Pepper cover says "Beatles" not "the Beatles". A piece of paper autographed by all four using "Beatles", 1963. A piece of paper signed by all four on which McCartney wrote "Beatles". This website contains 9 examples that show signatures by all four with "Beatles". Another example signed by all four using "Beatles". An autographed album page containing the signatures of all four Beatles on which Harrison wrote "Beatles". In autograph book signed by all four, McCartney wrote "Beatles", 1963. A page from an autograph book signed by all four using "Beatles", 1965. Signed by all four with Ringo Starr adding "Beatles", April 1963. A piece of paper signed "Beatles" by McCartney also signed by Starr. A signed piece of paper using "Beatles". A "Helter Skelter" single that omits "the", using only "Beatles" on the label. The Beatles Forever EP which uses only "Beatles". The Magical Mystery Tour EP which uses only "Beatles". The "All Together Now"/"Hey Bulldog" single. The "Lady Madonna"/"Inner Light" single which uses "Beatles". The back cover of Abbey Road which uses "Beatles". A flyer which uses only "Beatles". And the John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band album has Lennon singing "I don't believe in Beatles". Brian Epstein's book, both of George Martin's books, Geoff Emerick's book, Derek Taylor's book, Peter Brown's book, George Harrison's book, Paul McCartney's book and Coleman's bios on John Lennon all use a lower-case definite article mid-sentence throughout.

Usage data: The following is from a corpus test using one representative corpus of written British English (the BNC) and one of American English (COCA). The data shows that 89.5% of American sources use a lower-case definite article, and 55% of British sources use a lower-case definite article.

	British BNC		American COCA
Lowercase article	126		564
Uppercase article	103		66
Total	229		630
Percent lower-case	55%		89.5%

Despite the citation of "The Tempest", "The Hobbit", "The Avengers", "The Guardian", "The Hague", etc." in the "Upper-case" section below, these examples are not relevant to this case. Since we are discussing band names and those articles are not, this is an example of the sorts of arguments WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aims to prevent. In addition, every one of the examples of literary works given is governed by grammatical and MoS guidelines separate entirely from the issue of band names. In particular, "most titles of artistic works" would seem to be the relevant clause of the MoS. For The Hague, the MoS is also very helpful when it gives the specific example, "public transport in The Hague". These are very specific exceptions, which have very specific and long-established rationales in the English language. They are defined by universally accepted standards of grammar that have nothing at all to do with the present discussion.

Likewise, capitalisation of The Guardian is implicitly endorsed by Wikipedia's Manual of Style when it repeatedly uses the full-form The New York Times, as well as the titles of other periodicals, in several different locations in running text. (NB: This is actually a matter of some disagreement among style guides: the APA prefers a capitalized "The" in running text, while the Chicago Manual of Style (15th ed.) recommends treating "the" as not a part of the title, and neither capitalising it nor italicising it.) Regardless, the capitalisation of titles of publications is in no way comparable to that of band names.

Evidence for upper-case

• "The Beatles" is a registered trade mark of Apple Corps Ltd. and the MoS says to capitalize trademarks in general.

High-quality primary sources that support an upper-case definite article mid-sentence include:

• Official Beatles web site
• Official Ringo Starr web site
• Official Pete Best web site
• Official George Martin Music web site
• Official Phil Spector web site
• Official Michael Lindsay-Hogg web site
• The Beatles Anthology (Omnibus Press), "editorial note" at beginning of volume.
• EMI Group Limited, example: Timeline
• A letter dated 18 April 1969, signed by Lennon, Harrison and Starr (Richard Starkey) which uses an upper-case definite article mid-sentence when referring to "The Beatles" as a corporate entity.
• A letter dated 14 June 1966 signed by Ron Tepper, Manager, Press & Information Services, Capitol Records, recalling The Beatles "Yesterday And Today" butcher cover. Text uses uppercase "The" mid-sentence.
• A letter dated 14 June 1967 signed by Ron Tepper, Manager, Press & Information Services, Capitol Records, withdrawing the album "The Beatles vs. The Beach Boys". Text uses uppercase "The" mid-sentence.
• A 1962 letter signed by Miss R. Brown, Secretary, The Beatles Fan Club.
• Beatles Fan Club Newsletter, September 1963 -- text uses uppercase "The" mid-sentence.
• Album cover for LP issue of "With The Beatles", Parlophone PMC 1206 -- signed by all four Beatles, text consistently uses uppercase "The" mid-sentence.
• Back cover of "A Hard Day's Night", Parlophone PMC 1230 -- text consistently uses uppercase "The" mid-sentence.
• Back cover of "Extracts from the album 'A Hard Day's Night'", 45 extended play, Parlophone GEP 8924 -- text uses uppercase "The" mid-sentence.
• Back cover of "With The Beatles" extended play -- EMI Australia
• Back cover of "Twist and Shout", 45 extended play, Australian relase, Parlophone GEPO 8882 - text uses uppercase "The" mid-sentence.
• Back cover of "The Beatles (No. 1) 45 extended play, EMI GEP 8883 -- text consistently uses uppercase "The" mid-sentence.
• Back cover of "Please Please Me", Parlophone PMC 1202 - text consistently uses uppercase "The" mid-sentence.
• Back cover of "Never Mind The Tremeloes...Here's The Beatles" -- 1962 audition for Decca records -- 5 out of 6 mid-sentence references use uppercase "The".
• Web site for Beatles Autographs /Frank Caiazzo -- Frank Caiazzo is widely recognized as the world's premier authenticator of Beatles signatures.
• Letter dated 18 September 2011 by Frank Caiazzo authenticating signatures on "Meet The Beatles" album cover -- text consistently uses uppercase "The" mid-sentence.

Use with other bands

• There are many groups named "The _________". The resolution of this mediation could potentially affect usage in articles for all such bands. A rough sampling of WP articles on British Invasion bands contemporaneous with "the/The Beatles" reveals considerable inconsistency. Many articles have mixed usages, with both "the" and "The" used mid sentence, in an apparently indiscriminate way: e.g. The Troggs, The Dave Clark Five, The Moody Blues, The Searchers, The Animals. A number of articles have some mixture, but tend predominantly towards lower-case "t" in mid-sentence: e.g. The Yardbirds. One article is pretty consistent with lower case "t": The Rolling Stones.

Where there is consistency throughout a given article, however, the tendency is to use upper-case "T": The Kinks, The Hollies, The Zombies, The Who (although this might be a special case, sui generis), The Fortunes. The same is true for American groups of the period: The Doors, The Buckinghams, etc. -- although, once again, most articles have a mixture of usages, more or less willy-nilly. The upshot is that there appears to be an existing unacknowledged, and perhaps unconscious, practical consensus slightly favoring capital "T". Depending on the outcome of the mediation, if an effort is made to standardize across WP through explicit guidance in the MoS, there will probably be more cleanup work in shifting capital "T" to lower-case "t". That said, there will be a lot of effort in either direction.

• Upper-case is the standard for a wide variety of articles. Some examples:
  • Literary works: The Tempest, The Hobbit, The Tell-Tale Heart, The Scarlet Letter, The Sun Also Rises.
  • Films: The Godfather, The Avengers, The Dark Knight, The Departed, The Social Network.
  • Albums: The Beatles, The Wall, The Black Album.
  • Paintings: The Last Supper, The Storm on the Sea of Galilee, The Last Judgment.
• Because of this, we're left with the possibility for awkward sentences such as "In November 1968, the Beatles released their eponymous album The Beatles, also known as The White Album." Or "At the end of 2010's, The Social Network the Beatles' song Baby, You're a Rich Man played over the ending credits. And while some style guides might differentiate between other band names and other names, this remains a matter of style and not substance and thus we can determine our own style.

An incalculable number of high-quality printed secondary sources used to source Wikipedia articles related to The Beatles use an upper-case definite article mid-sentence. Printed sources tend significantly toward an upper-case "The" in mid-sentence, and there is an existing practical consensus strongly favouring an upper-case definite article. Wikipedia should be consistent with a global consensus in published books dealing with The Beatles, including:

Click on "show" (far right) to uncollapse a sample list of over 30 high-quality WP:RSs currently used to source Beatles articles on Wikipedia that use an upper-case definite article mid-sentence

The Beatles: Music Revolutionaries, by Jeremy Roberts (USA Today). The Rough Guide to The Beatles, by Chris Ingham. Revolution in the Head: The Beatles' Records and the Sixties, by Ian MacDonald (Chicago Review Press). The Beatles Complete Chord Songbook (Hal Leonard Corporation) Paul McCartney - Bass Master - Playing the Great Beatles Basslines, by Tony Bacon and Gareth Morgan Beatles Gear: All the Fab Four's Instruments from Stage to Studio by Andy Babiuk George Harrison: Living in the Material World, by Olivia Harrison and Mark Holborn I'm with the Band: Confessions of a Groupie, by Pamela Des Barres. Ringo Starr: Straight Man or Joker, by Alan Clayson. Abbey Road to Ziggy Stardust: Off-the-record with The Beatles, Bowie, Elton, and so much more, by Ken Scott. The Beatles in Hamburg, by Ian Inglis. Read the Beatles: Classic and New Writings on the Beatles, Their Legacy, and Why They Still Matter, by June Skinner Sawyers Get Back: The Unauthorized Chronicle of The Beatles' " Let It Be" Disaster, by Doug Sulpy and Ray Schweighardt The Longest Cocktail Party: An Insider's Diary of The Beatles, Their Million-Dollar 'Apple' Empire and Its Wild Rise and Fall, by Richard DiLello The Beatles on Film: Analysis of Movies, Documentaries, Spoofs and Cartoons, by Roland Reiter The Beatles Off the Record, by Keith Badman The Beatles Diary, Vol. 1: The Beatles Years, by Barry Miles. The Beatles Diary, Volume 2 : After the Break-Up, 1970-2001, by Barry Miles and Keith Badman Beatlemania!: The Real Story of The Beatles UK Tours, by Martin Creasy. The Beatles After the Break-Up (In Their Own Words), by David Bennahum. Who Could Ask for More?: Reclaiming The Beatles, by Chris Gregory. The Beatles: The Music And The Myth, by Peter Doggett and Patrick Humphries. Northern Songs: The True Story of The Beatles Song Publishing Empire, by Brian Southall. The Making of The Beatles' Magical Mystery Tour, by Tony Barrow. The Beatles: A Diary: An Intimate Day by Day History The Songwriting Secrets of The " Beatles ", by Dominic Pedler. Concert for George Official Web Site The Lennon Companion, by Elizabeth Thomson and David Gutman. John, Paul, George, Ringo and Me: The Real Beatles Story, by Tony Barrow. The Beatles Bible web site Fab Gear: The Beatles and Fashion, by Paolo Hewitt Where's Eric: The Eric Clapton Fan Club Magazine

Bands whose names begin with the definite article tend predominantly toward an upper-case "The" in mid-sentence, and there is an existing practical consensus strongly favouring an upper-case definite article. Wikipedia should be consistent with the overwhelming consensus as represented in the official web sites of such bands, including:

---

Usage data: When considering usage for a select sampling of bands contemporary with The Beatles, the following is from a corpus test using (the British National Corpus (BNC). The data shows that, for the selected bands, the great majority of British sources use an upper-case definite article in mid-sentence.

	Uppercase ”The”		Total Number		% Uppercase
The Byrds	15		19		79%
The Yardbirds	6		6		100%
The Small Faces	8		11		73%
The Moody Blues	6		8		75%
The Troggs	3		3		100%

References

Poll (!vote here)

Notes

• Please sign in the appropriate section below to indicate your preference for the lowercase or uppercase styles described above.
• Please refrain from directly commenting on other people's !votes. There is a separate sub-section below for discussion, and comments should be made there, rather than in the poll sub-sections.
• This poll is relevant only to running-prose/mid-sentence band name usage as a noun. It will not affect capitalisation when beginning a sentence with the band name.

Support lower-case style mid-sentence (...the Beatles...)

1. ~~~~

Support upper-case style mid-sentence (...The Beatles...)

1. ~~~~

Discussion

• In my opinion, ...

Discussion

• Comment - I have intentionally not numbered the options to avoid the appearance that they are ranked in any way. If you disagree please let me know. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

  It might make sense to refer to the options as uppercase/lowercase instead of The/the. Also, I don't think it's necessary to include the 'reasons against' section for the upper/lower parts since the reasons against would (presumably) be the reason for the other choice. Hot Stop 05:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

  I agree, and I've made the suggested changes, thanks for the input. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment -- I'm OK with a simplified version of this poll. My suggestions are to: (1) Eliminate the "arguments for & against" sections. It seems to me that all points of view have already been expressed. Perhaps a link to one or more of the discussions concerning "the/The" could be provided for the benefit of editors who might not have been aware of this controversy until now. (2) Change the "neither" option to read: "Neither - Mandatory avoidance of all uses of the band name as a noun in mid-sentence." That way, Beatles as an adjective (e.g. "Beatles paraphernalia") would be OK. So the resulting poll would be very simple -- just a statement of the issue and a vote: one person, one vote, three options, no discussion.Jburlinson (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making comments Jbulinson. I agree with comment (2), and will make the appropriate change. On comment (1) I tend to disagree a bit. As not everyone is equally familiar with this issue I think rationales are needed. Lets wait and see what others think on this particular issue. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• One must realise that this is a mediation, and not an article to be improved. This is not a GAR, nor an FAC. Before any changes are made, they should be proposed, and then agreed upon by all parties involved. No single person is at the helm here.--andreasegde (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I propose that the above "Discussion and straw poll (draft)" should be closed, as it goes against the wishes of the mediators, which is to make this poll as simple as possible, to avoid any confusion.--andreasegde (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Andreasegde, are you willing to make some specific comments that could be addressed? This is only a first draft, I am sure the final poll will address everyone's issues. You seem to think that every edit or revision to the draft requires unanimous support from all parties to the mediation, but I do not see that in any of the mediators comments. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read the statement above: "'We' includes everyone here — that is, the poll options will be something all parties to the mediation agree on". Your comment that I "seem to think that every edit or revision to the draft requires unanimous support" is obviously wrong. Let's work together to make it as simple as possible, and something that we all agree about.--andreasegde (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I want to collaborate with you and everyone else, that's why I asked you for specific suggestions versus blanket statements that cannot be addressed. Also, I think the mediators meant that before the poll goes live we will have reached full agreement, not that every tweak during the drafting phase requires prior consensus. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

My statement was very clear, as was the mediator's advice, which was/is to make it as simple as possible, so as to avoid confusion. Three simple, direct questions that have one answer to the person that replies. Anything more is clouding the issue.--andreasegde (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, so what specifically are you suggesting we change so as to avoid potential confusion? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read my previous comments.--andreasegde (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I've tried to improve the Options text and Argument section layout to make things as obvious as possible. Could people please contemplate whether the word "Straw" needs to be associated with this exercise? (My suggestion is to remove "straw".) Could I suggest to everyone here not to treat any one revision as the final version, and to realise that we are undertaking the process of preparing wording that others can decide is worth putting forward to the community as a poll? Accordingly, let's try as hard as possible to stick to the issues, and to debate concrete suggestions and poll text. Cheers. GFHandel ♬  23:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any need for the word "straw". ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I agree with GabeMc as long as the options include all of the possibilities that could work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.135.28 (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Editor has been blocked as a duck sock. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 03:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• In none of the poll arguments should there be examples taken from Wikipedia. This poll will determine Wikipedia practise, so such examples are putting the cart before the horse. Binksternet (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Except we're only determining consensus for Beatles topics. If there's already a consensus in regards to The Who, The Guess Who, etc. it should be noted. Hot Stop 14:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The various other "consensuses" have been in flux as has the guideline at MOS, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music and at Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Policy. I think it's high time we looked outside the fishbowl to see what wiser heads have determined, specifically style guidelines written for large audiences. Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I too disagree. Wikipedia articles are not WP:RSs, and as such they have little to no bearing on this discussion/poll. We should use reliable secondary and primary sources to support the options, not other wikipedia articles. I think the only thing we can agree on here is that usage is mixed on wikipedia, therefore no attempt to declare a project consensus based on other articles on wikipedia should be used. Recently, a couple of editors went to Pink Floyd and changed many of the "t"s to "T"s, but before this action the article was mostly "t"s. Also, if you look back far enough, you will see that Beatles related articles used to have a lower-case definite article throughout, until several editors took it upon themselves to change this, hence the current contentious situation. See here for an AN/I report from 18 months ago where a user is complaining about the recent changes/edit warring in this regard. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Those other upper case Wikipedia instances also need changing. Rothorpe (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Moved from poll text

:: IMO, the above point should be removed entirely. Other wikipedia articles are not evidence for upper-case. Wikipedia articles are not WP:RS, and as such they should not be used as evidence. I.e. if we cannot cite to them in articles, then we shouldn't present them as reliable sources here. The above point is also loaded with speculation, personal opinions and analysis that amount to WP:OR. Disagree with the above and it's inappropriate to put rebuttals in this section. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Other Wikipedia articles should not be used as examples. Binksternet (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC) I removed the point as rife with speculation, bias, and leading/manipulative statements. Lets stick to verifiable facts from WP:RS here please. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Context argument as a 4th option

Collapsing - the IP who added the "both" option has been blocked for sockpuppetry. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Maybe we should discuss this, as it is a fourth option, and we do not want to be accused later of not covering all the bases now. IMO, this option would move the issue from an article page by article page discussion to an occurrence by occurrence discussion, multipling the problem ten-fold. Apple cannot even get this straight, from the 2009 liner notes: Let it Be - "When this plan was eventually discarded, The Beatles reunited at their own studio in the basement of their Apple HQ". Abbey Road - "In the early part of 1969, the Beatles had recorded in their own studio in the basement of the Apple office building". Help! - "Within three days of he last February session, the Beatles were acting in scenes for the movie". Help! - "Before setting off for a brief European tour at the end of June, The Beatles recorded the songs needed to complete the album". From www.thebeatles.com: Please Please Me, With The Beatles, A Hard Day's Night, Beatles For Sale, the White Album and Yellow Submarine. That's the official summary of six of their twelve UK studio LPs, all use small "t". The other six summaries are mixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Poll The purpose of this poll is to determine if there in any support for adding a fourth option to our mediation poll. The fourth option, Both, or the "context argument", suggests that capitalisation is determined at each occurence based on context. Oppose Oppose the "context argument" as a non-solution that would actually serve to exacerbate contention. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Support Neutral Question(s): Is this a poll within a poll? If so, is the topic whether or not to add a fourth option to the first poll? If so, is the new option for the first poll "Both", defined as: "Generally avoid mid-sentence usage of band's name but permitted where needed to name the band mid-sentence ("... The Beatles") or ("...the Beatles") (as individual members)."? As my questions probably make clear, I'm confused. The option for "Both" seems to be saying -- anything goes, just do what you want. Is that the case?Jburlinson (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC) To clarify, the "Both" option was added to the poll by the sock troll IP 99, not me, I do not support it, but since their ban will lift in less than a week, I suggest we deal with the issue now. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC) The "both" option is confusing, I agree, that's why I have opposed it. There are at least three or four editors I could mention that have supported this option, so I think it's important that we decide whether or not to include it here. We have to cover all the bases no matter how silly it seems, but I'm not sure we need to include this option in our poll, hence the poll within a poll (draft) discussion. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC) A poll about a poll within a poll? This is getting very, very silly. I agree with Jburlinson's way of dealing with this, as he's actually talking about proposals, rather than jumping in the deep end with masses of information splashed all over this page. As said above, we all have to agree, which can only be done by conversing.--andreasegde (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Andreasegde, please stop with the insulting tone and please stop implying that we are not conversing. That's exactly what this page is for and that's exactly what we are doing here, we are collaborating on the poll. This is not silly, there is indeed a fourth option which in fact you have at times supported and recently mentioned. If we refuse to discuss whether or not to include the fourth option we are leaving room for later complaints by IP 99 for example. Lets do this right, so that we do not need to do it again anytime soon. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Stop the accusations about "insulting tone" and "implying"; it's very tiring. Having a poll about a proposed poll within a discussion about a poll is silly. To "do this right" means discussion, and not creating arguments.--andreasegde (talk) 05:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC) I would prefer to discuss this as well, but you made five comments here within 38 minutes without offering one specific suggestion for improvement. This is a good time to start collaborating Andreasegde. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)  Done--andreasegde (talk) 06:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

EMI

EMI's timeline is included in support of upper case The. However, all mentions of the Beatles are also bolded: The Beatles, and there are references to 'the Edgar Broughton Band', etc., with lower case. So that's a dud example. Rothorpe (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

In EMI's timeline, The Beatles is bolded because each instance is a hyperlink. Edgar Broughton Band does not include the word "the" in its official title. EMI consistently uses "The" upper-case for The Beatles, hence it's decent piece of evidence for an option that is quickly becoming as outnumbered as the Spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae. Jburlinson (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

How about the official John Lennon website, hosted by EMI Group Limited? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Back to basics poll (proposal)

As the mediators proposed above, "The, the, neither", should be the first step, meaning presenting something in as simple a way as possible:

As this problem has been argued about for years, we ask you to chose one from the three below:

• Capitalised: "In 1966, The Beatles..."
• Small case: "In 1966, the Beatles..."
• Avoiding mid-sentence: "In 1966, the band/they.."'

--andreasegde (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments?

I strongly suggest we avoid using it in a sentence as an example in the poll. If you contort a sentence into two forms, both will not be equally as pleasing, which could lead to bias. For example:

"In August 1966, one week before their final tour, the Beatles released Revolver."

"The Beatles released Revolver one week before their final tour, in August 1966."

~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with "The Beatles released Revolver one week before their final tour, in August 1966.--andreasegde (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO, your preferred version implies it was their final tour of August 1966, versus their final tour ever. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Please disregard my comment above. IMO, your sentence examples are too long. They confuse the reader (as they did me).--andreasegde (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"The Beatles released Revolver (comma) one week before their final tour (comma) in August 1966." Or: "The Beatles released Revolver in August 1966 (comma) one week before their final tour.” Both work--Patthedog (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC).

"The Beatles released Revolver in August 1966, one week before their final tour." If that's too long, ok let's shorten it - the example can leave off "one week before their final tour"- but there is no problem to me with this longer construction. Not confusing, not awkward, perfectly fine. But in any case, I think we need to have full sentences in the examples, or people don't know what they are choosing from. Tvoz/talk 19:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The comments here should be about the Back to basics poll (proposal).--andreasegde (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments should focus on the content of the poll, not user conduct. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It would be appropriate to allow others in this mediation to comment.--andreasegde (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Please stop implying that I am in anyway preventing or hindering anyone else from commenting here. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC) By leaving a comment after my last one above, you are doing exactly that. Please wait until others have commented.--andreasegde (talk) 06:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Arguments for "upper-case" and "neither"

Hello everyone, and thank you for your work on the poll so far! I think we have made very good progress. Still, at the moment the poll options are looking a little lopsided. At the moment we have a lot of work on the "arguments for lower-case" section, but hardly any work on the "arguments for upper-case", "arguments for neither", and "arguments against neither" sections. Feezo and I are of the opinion that the next thing we should do is to flesh out the arguments for the latter three sections. So, could editors refrain from editing the poll for now, apart from these three sections? Once we have all the arguments for the "arguments for upper-case", "arguments for neither", and "arguments against neither" sections laid down, we can take stock of our work and decide what the next steps should be. As usual, please let either Feezo or myself know if you have any questions about this. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Have you looked at this? It is proposing that the poll should be as simple as possible.
• IMO, there should be no arguments for/against.
• AS per this staement, ""We" includes everyone here — that is, the poll options will be something all parties to the mediation agree on." Participants have not yet agreed that the form of the poll being proposed is the right way to go forward.--andreasegde (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with Mr. Stradivarius in that good work has been done so far. It is quite proper to have for/against text, and it is concomitant on all parties to prepare their case for the poll to come. Of course, subsequent !votes are not limited to those cases, but they present an excellent and well-reasoned starting point for a well-publicized poll. Let's all work hard towards completing this once and for all so that we can all get back to why we are here: building an encyclopaedia for our readers. GFHandel ♬  11:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, GFHandel, but are you a participant in this mediation? Maybe I missed something.--andreasegde (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have to be a "participant" to help format the poll—which is all I've done. GFHandel ♬  20:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, its my understanding that this is a public mediation in which anyone can participate, not just those who signed the list. Maybe Feezo or Strad can correct me here if I have misunderstood something. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's clear that reliable sources cannot agree on the use of "The Beatles" or "the Beatles" in mid-sentence. The official Beatles web site at thebeatles.com uses "The Beatles" in new text, but archived text often use "the Beatles" such as with old music reviews. Because of the trade mark status of "The Beatles," we should use that in cases where we have to, but otherwise avoid use of that band's name in mid-sentence. Re-writing the text so it would begin with "The Beatles" is allowable as long as the rewording does not change the context or potentially mislead anyone. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Please note that this comment is not relevant here as it pre-empts a result. What is happening here is the construction of a poll, so could editors please restrict their comments towards that goal? Thanks. GFHandel ♬  20:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. I added a couple of thoughts to the section "for" capital-T. I may not agree with these thoughts, but they seem at least somewhat reasonable to me. I'll leave it to others to come up with the advantages of "neither." Jburlinson (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with GFHandel, lets try to stay on track here, this is not the time or place to debate the topic that in truth, has already been discussed ad nauseum. Further I would suggest that in nearly three years of editing Beatles related articles I have not seen even one person switch sides, not one. Lets collaborate on the poll, and lets try to stay on that track. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought I was trying to stay on track. My inserts into the poll were a response to the mediators' specific request for additional language in the "arguments for 'upper case' and "neither'" sections. I'm under the impression that the text for the poll is a "work in progress" to which we're all supposed to contribute. Am I wrong? If so, sorry for stepping out of line.Jburlinson (talk) 21:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries Jburlinson, we appreciate your input, I don't think you stepped out-of-line at all, I think the idea here is that you should feel free to make edits to the unfinished sections, just refrain from making signed comments in the poll. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. Understood. I'm learning, albeit slowly. I took my name off the entries. I guess I was assuming that whenever the poll was approved by consensus, somebody would strip the names out. Anybody should feel free to edit what I added for conciseness or better clarity.Jburlinson (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just learning this too, how could you have known. Also, you may well be correct, that any comments would be stripped out later anyway, but I think in general we want to retain your comments in the archive of this mediation, hence the discussion sub-section. At any rate, many of us have never done this before so don't worry about the learning curve. We are just glad that you are participating. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - IMO, the following statement is inaccurate and misleading: "The question to be decided is: Is the word "the" part of the band's official name? If so, then the word "the" is part of a proper name and, as such, needs to be capitalized whenever it occurs": 1) as far as I know we are not making any judgements on whether or not "the" is part of the band's name, and it is not on the list of issues to be addressed at this mediation. 2) this statement is implying that if one thinks that "the" is part of the band's name then therefore it should be capped, simple as that. I strongly suggest that this faulty logic either be removed or reworded so as to not mislead. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree. The arguments (for or against) shouldn't start with sentiments such as "The question to be decided is". Those sorts of umbrella statements belong at the top of the poll text in accordance with the wishes of those who have requested the poll. The text should be rephrased to be in keeping with the spirit of the Arguments for Upper-case section, for example: " 'The' is considered to be part of the band's name and therefore should be capitalized", and readers of the poll can evaluate that as an argument. Of course, if that argument is proffered then those disputing that assertion would do well to add a point to the Arguments for Lower-case section providing a counterargument. GFHandel ♬  22:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I'll change the wording as suggested. The authoritative source in this case is the official Beatles web siteJburlinson (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should be moved to a new place in the poll or re-worded, I think it needs to go. It is basically a set-up for the !voter, who is being instructed by the statement that if they think "the" is part of the band's name then they should !vote for "The", which is of course, not only misleading but also patently false. I am quite sure that the 45 books I own on the Beatles that use "the" aren't all taking the position that "the" is not actually part of the band's name. I think this should go altogether as there does not seem to be any justification for it, it misleads, confuses and is untrue. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it is the right of each "side" to proffer arguments that they believe support their case. The whole point of building argument sections is so that each section can present arguments, and counter the points raised by the other section—with the aim that the reader will become fully informed before !voting. In the absence of consensus here, I believe it should be up to the mediators to remove points that they consider to be blatantly untrue or misleading. GFHandel ♬  23:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I hear you, and I agree. The mediators should decide this specific point. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've made some changes to the draft, adding a bit more background. They aren't "official" changes in any way, so feel free to remove/modify/discuss them, especially the "binding" clause. Really pleased with the effort everyone's put into this — keep it up, guys :) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I suggest that if we do decide to attempt to make this poll binding that we do so on every !voter, not just the patries to the mediation. There are several parties who refused to participate in the mediation, and they could !vote without agreeing to be bound by their !vote, swaying the consensus while not in any agreement to resolve the issue. Short form: if you !vote in the poll you are agreeing to be bound by your !vote. Any thoughts? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't think we have the authority to do that, unless you can dig up a precedent. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, I'm not aware of any precedent in wikipedia that concluded that all editors should avoid mid-sentence usage of the subject of an article, when writing about the subject; however, we are currently gearing up to !vote to that issue. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
        • My question is, why can't it be binding across the board? I can't see the outcome of this poll, whichever way it goes, not having an impact on all the other bands that use the definite article. Incidentally, this is another good reason to advertise this thing as much as possible. Canvass the neighbourhood, if you will, make it binding on all articles and we'll never have to deal with it again. And, regardless of everyone's personal opinion, not dealing with it again should be everyone's goal. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I strongly oppose the addition of this statement to the arguments for "the": "Based on the above authoritative sources, it is clear that "the" is not part of the band's name and therefore should not be capitalized" - That is not the point of the argument whatsoever, and it appears to be the summation of said argument when in reality it is not at all. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it should be removed. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

When you say "Done", please note that you have removed the issue from the Arguments for Lower-case section while retaining it in the Arguments for Upper-case section. Was that your intention? GFHandel ♬  23:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I meant done in regards to the arguments for "the", I didn't want to mess with the arguments for "The", and since Feezo wasn't clear on that point I left it in. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Didn't realize it was still there. If one is removed, then both should be. The only difference I see is that the "authoritative source" is the trademark registration, which is covered by the first bullet point. (This is purely my own opinion, of course.) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Done (removed from both the arguments for "the" and "The"). ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The "authoritative source" is the official Beatles web site. There are other creditable sources, but this one seems pretty authoritative to me.

The topic is germane to the poll because the second issue to be mediated is: "How Wikipedia's Manual of Style affects the choice of "the" or "The"". The MoS specifically refers to a determination from an authoritative source as to whether or not the word "the" is an official part of the band's name. (The example used in the MoS is The Velvet Underground.) People taking the poll need to consider this question in order to make an informed decision. If the word "the" is not considered by an authoritative source to be part of the band's name, then the entire issue under mediation is moot and there is no controversy at all.Jburlinson (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Jburlinson

Jbulinson, are you suggesting that at www.thebeatles.com is evidence that "the" is not part of the band's name? If so can you please point out where exactly this is made clear. At any rate, this is not currently an issue to be mediated, so if you wish to add it to the list of issues to be mediated, I suggest you ask the mediators about it. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

GabeMc -- no, what I'm saying is that the official web site consistently uses upper-case "T", unless it's quoting text that uses lower-case "t". For example, the current homepage for the site contains the phrase: "The LP features 14 of The Beatles' most powerful rock songs spanning their entire trailblazing and influential catalogue..." Again, on the history page for 1969, there's the statement: "That the rift between The Beatles, evolved with much public angst was a pity but this is not a perfect world is it?" (I don't know why there's a comma after the word "Beatles," but I guess that's because it's not a perfect world.)Jburlinson (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Jburlinson, to state that "the official web site consistently uses upper-case "T"" is not accurate.

• From www.thebeatles.com: Please Please Me, With The Beatles, A Hard Day's Night, Beatles For Sale, the White Album and Yellow Submarine. Those are the official summaries of six of their twelve UK studio LPs, all use only small "t". The other six summaries are mixed. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• From www.thebeatles.com; History: 1965 mixed, 1967 small-case, 1968 mixed. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

At any rate, I am still not seeing how www.thebeatles.com supports the argument that "the" is not part of their official name, or how this relates to the mediation at hand. Can you clarify your point here please. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• OK. I'll amend my comment to "the official web site frequently uses...". It's not consistent, one way or the other. However, many of the instances of small "t" in the album pages are quotes from either NME or WikiPedia. In fairness, I'll admit that many instances of capital "T" are part of quotes as well. What is consistent is the use of the definite article in one form or the other. I'm not trying to say that www.thebeatles.com supports "the" not being part of the official name. Actually, I've been saying just the opposite. According to this "authoritative source," the word "the" is part of the name; in fact, it frequently, if not exclusively, uses capital T "The". I've already explained how I think this relates to the mediation, but, since comments and retorts are flying back and forth at a pretty brisk pace, it might have gotten overlooked. Here it is again: The topic is germane to the poll because the second issue to be mediated is: "How Wikipedia's Manual of Style affects the choice of "the" or "The"". The MoS specifically refers to a determination from an authoritative source as to whether or not the word "the" is an official part of the band's name. (The example used in the MoS is The Velvet Underground vs. Black Sabbath.) People taking the poll need to consider this question in order to make an informed decision. If the word "the" is not considered by an authoritative source to be part of the band's name, then the entire issue under mediation is moot and there is no controversy at all. Jburlinson (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Please everyone try not to get into a "yes it is", "no it isn't" loop here. This exercise is about working evidence into the poll text argument sections—not debating the efficacy of that evidence. If someone is not happy about some text and consensus cannot easily be resolved here, then they should seek assistance from the mediators (and I've started a section below for that). Also note that this is worth getting right and the poll text doesn't have to be finalized today (so taking a break while others comment is always an option). GFHandel ♬  01:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I'll be honest and admit that I'm not across the full history of this (and I suspect that there is too much history to get on top of it all now), but I'm going to be bold and suggest that the poll text should be able to raise the issue of whether the definite article is part of the band's name. We're not talking about mathematical proofs here, so all each case can do is present evidence to support their claims (with the mediators to decide if any evidence is clearly untrue or misleading). The problem with not covering the issue in the poll text (at least to some extent) is that the issue will surely be raised in comments by editors when the poll opens, and therefore it is essential that they have some guidance and evidence to consider when commenting. If the question of whether the definite article is part of the band's name is really the key issue (and I suspect it is), then perhaps the mediators can work that into the statement of the poll's aims? If that was done, it would mean that the issue doesn't have to be worked into the poll text because it would be something that would fall out of the poll result (based on other evidence). Anyhow, obviously up to the editors who are across all the history. GFHandel ♬  02:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, to clarify, are you (Jburlinson and GFHandel) saying that the "authoritative source" for the argument that "the" is not part of the band name is www.thebeatles.com? Why thebeatles.com and not beatles.com then? Are there any other sources that support this? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not commenting on that either way. What I'm saying is that evidence should be presented in the poll text (by all sides) so that when the issue comes up in the minds of the !voters, they have as much guidance as possible to form an opinion. If one side doesn't believe that the other side's evidence text is accurate, they can point that out in their own text. If one side believes that the other side's evidence text is downright false or too misleading, they can point that out (below) to the mediators who can make a call. (And incidentally, www.thebeatles.com and www.beatles.com resolve to the same page.) GFHandel ♬  03:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree with you in principle, that's why I opened the "Context argument as a 4th option" sub-section above, as its not a completely ridiculous notion (it appears to be what Apple is doing) and a reasonable !voter may well have simliar concerns. I would also like to cover as many bases as we can here, but I predict others will complain about the added complexity as a confusing factor, likely to be used later as fodder against the results, maybe I'm wrong about this. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Question: Above it states "The Beatles" is a registered trade mark of Apple Corps Ltd. Are trademarks really case sensitive? Would the strength of a trademark infringement case depend on whether "The Beatles", "the Beatles", "Beatles", "Beatle", "THE BEATLES", "BEATLES", "BEATLE", or any other derivative was used? Could someone please provide a reliable source on this? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that this needs to be figured out properly. I tried this search, but I get "Service unavailable!" whenever I try to view something from the search results. Perhaps others will have more luck eventually? Until then, I've added {{Citation needed}} until something decisive is determined. GFHandel ♬  00:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I deal with (United States) copyright and trademark issues quite a lot in my work, and I can tell you that, regardless of what capitalisation scheme is used in the official registration, all variations of "The Beatles" are protected, and any lawsuits would almost certainly be decided accordingly. (Most trademark registrations for particular words or phrases will use all-caps variants of the text, not that it's relevant.) Again, fair use exemptions allow third-party sources like Wikipedia and music journalists to use the mark in their own work, provided that there is no chance of confusion as to something being an officially licensed product, and that their use of the mark does not measurably detract from Apple's own products which use it. Capitalisation is not a trademark issue, and trademark is not a capitalisation issue. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but I suspect that the issue is whether "the beatles" (no caps on purpose) has been trademarked. If it has, then one argument for upper-case is that "the" is part of the band's name (at least to some degree as far as Apple Corps is concerned). I'm suggesting that evidence (either way) needs to be worked into the poll text so that this is not a reason for speculation during the poll discussion. Certainly such discussion has been part of previous poll comments. GFHandel ♬  01:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, how about this approach: If "Beatles" is trade marked, then whose to say that when we use their name we aren't using "Beatles" and adding a definite article before "Beatles" to construct a proper sentence? E.g. In 1966, the "Beatles" released Revolver, with "the" being an essential part of proper grammar here and "Beatles" being the trade marked name. Any thoughts? (FTR, I do not think TMs apply here at all, but it is a topic that needs to be discussed). ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) All the results I get from clicking the link you posted consistently use "BEATLES" and "THE BEATLES", except for the first result, which appears to be a court decision somehow related to the Yellow Submarine film, which uses "the Beatles" in running prose. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, if the trade mark issue is really a determiner here, then why does Apple use both upper and lower-case on both their website and in the 2009 remaster liner notes? If Apple does not insist on an upper-case definite article throughout then why in the world would we? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Outcome: the mediators have asked andreasdge to withdraw from the mediation. This decision is based purely on what we see as being in the best interests of the mediation. In particular, we do not find fault with andreasdge, nor any other involved party. If the participants have any questions about this decision, or any other concerns regarding user conduct, we ask them to email us directly.
Issues requiring mediator assistance 1:Why is GFHandel in this mediation? The mediators should look at this talk page.--andreasegde (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 2: I do not agree with presenting arguments in a poll; there have been enough of those, and it will only inspire those being polled to join in.--andreasegde (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC) My comments are for the mediators, and for them alone. Please do not reply to them.--andreasegde (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Well, the idea is that the poll is something that the parties to the mediation can all agree on. I think it's necessary for the poll to describe the positions supporting and opposing each position. However, my opinions are not the last word — this is your mediation, and it's ultimately up to the parties. Perhaps the problem is simply semantic? Maybe we shouldn't be calling them "arguments", but instead "evidence". Then, it's hardly a problem if it encouages people to present more. With regards to GFHandel, being a listed party is not a requirement for participation. Entering a running mediation is only a problem if it's the result of canvassing, or if the editor is clearly trying to disrupt it. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 11:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC) "the poll is something that the parties to the mediation can all agree on". Have all the parties that are connected to this mediation agreed to the poll now being presented? "it's necessary for the poll to describe the positions supporting and opposing each position". This is where all the previous polls have been wrong. If you present arguments, it is inviting those being polled to present their own arguments, and the poll becomes a total mess of contradicting viewpoints. Since our goal is to maximize participation by editors who haven't previously been involved, it makes sense to distill the rationale for all positions into a clear, concise format. Otherwise, editors would have to read many different talk pages of unfocused discussion in order to make an informed choice. There is substantial precedent for structuring polls this way, and I doubt you are going to find much support, here or elsewhere, for removing the position statements entirely. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC) "this is your mediation, and it's ultimately up to the parties". This mediation is being snowballed by two editors (of which one is not even listed here), and has even gone so far as to try to control the comments by a participant. Read the comment, "I hope you don't mind that I removed your comment". I think GFHandel was just trying to reduce clutter after fulfilling a request. It's not standard practice, but since Jburlinson was notified of it, I don't see a problem. Can you explain what you mean when you say the "mediation is being snowballed"? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC) "With regards to GFHandel, being a listed party is not a requirement for participation". Then what was the point of sending wiki-mails? Does this mean that "all agree on" is inviting everybody to this mediation? What is the point of a mediation between conflicting parties if everyone is allowed to join it? --andreasegde (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC) "All" refers to the listed parties to the mediation. As this is a public process, editors are allowed to participate informally. Strongly partisan editors who weren't initially part of the dispute might be asked to leave, but I see no evidence that that applies here. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC) "Can you explain what you mean when you say the "mediation is being snowballed"?" Jburlinson is making some very pertinent comments above, but every post of his is replied to by two editors, who snowball his comments. Please read them, and if you want me to specifically quote each case, I will do so.--andreasegde (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Please read below (Issue/Issue). After asking for one section to be left alone for my questions to the mediators, the request was blatantly ignored.--andreasegde (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC) It contains ludicrous claims about "insulting and alarmist rhetoric", "undermining civility", and making this "like a battleground". Writing this as a supposed quote: "it's my way or the highway and your actions will destroy wikipedia [sic]" is outrageous. The editor in question should be warned about this. BTW, I see the comment was changed here.--andreasegde (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC) This mediation is now being joined by other editors, who are obviously intent on disrupting the mediation with further attacks. They should also be warned. This is no way to mediate as delicate a problem as this one is. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC) I would appreciate it very much if this space was left for the mediators to comment.--andreasegde (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Issue - As ordering the options would be inherently hierarchical, and thus potential for bias could arise from an option's particular place in the running order, I suggest that when the time comes, the order of the options be randomly determined. Also, they should not be numbered or lettered. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Issue - Can someone please ask Andreasegde to lay off the insulting and alarmist rhetoric, at least during mediation? E.g., "Does, 'Sorry, no replying to each other's posts for the moment, please' mean nothing? Very bad form, indeed", "You may have noticed that you are a tad late. Adding your comments after a request by the mediators to not do so is to wilfully ignore their polite request", "The whole section below should be deleted and left to the mediators; it is far too complicated ... I personally do not like steam-roller tactics", "We are discussing a poll with three options, not the Bill of Rights. It was suggested above that a 'statement' should be made, and not a speech to parliament", "and the poll becomes a total mess of contradicting viewpoints", "Stop the steamroller", "This mediation is being snowballed by two editors", "destructive to the future stability of Wikipedia", "will most definitely arise again at some point in the future", "That throws the can of petrol right back onto the fire", "this will spread across Wikipedia like a rash", "see what kind of problems will happen there in the future", "Excuse me, GFHandel, but are you a participant in this mediation?", "Why is GFHandel in this mediation?", "Does this mean that 'all agree on' is inviting everybody to this mediation? What is the point of a mediation between conflicting parties if everyone is allowed to join it?", "This mediation is now being joined by other editors, who are obviously intent on disrupting the mediation with further attacks. They should also be warned. This is no way to mediate as delicate a problem as this one is", "This is getting very, very silly", "rather than jumping in the deep end with masses of information splashed all over this page", "This is incomprehensible to me, but seems to be very destructive to the future stability of Wikipedia. Minimising the problem is the only way forward. If one side is enforced, arguments about the problem will continue forever. Would this be good for Wikipedia?", and "Stop the accusations about "insulting tone" and "implying"; it's very tiring." IMO, these alarming and insulting comments are undermining civility and making this mediation feel like a battleground. Also, at this point I am not seeing any attempt by Andreasegde to collaborate with others. It seems like nothing but: it's his way or the highway and our actions will destroy wikipedia. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Concern - I have a concern about this piece of evidence for "neither"- "From a stylistic perspective, repetition of the band's name mid-sentence can become wearying through redundancy. Use of a pronoun (e.g. "they", "them") or anaphora ("the group", "the band") is a way to avoid the controversy". I fail to see how this is evidence for "Neither" when the same is true no matter which option we use. E.g. why can't pronouns and anaphora be used just as well with "the" or "The". I think this should be removed as evidence for "Neither" as it is little more than basic grammatical advice. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC) re: "the same is true no matter which option we use. E.g. why can't pronouns and anaphora be used just as well with "the" or "The"." It's true that pronouns etc. can be used under all options. However, under the "neither" option, they must be used. The "evidence" statement is just to show that this option is at least feasible, and perhaps even preferable from a stylistic point of view. Jburlinson (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Further comments Anyone can participate Andreasegde, and we should not discourage participation. GFHandel could even formally join if they wanted. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC) FTR, GFHandel has done some great work here to improve the balance and clarity of the poll, and I think we should thank them for assisting us in our project, they are indeed an asset. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Also, IMO, both sides of this argument are suffering from a bit of Groupthink, so any input from editors not already entrenched in this debate should be warmly welcomed, and they should not be driven away from participating. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Regarding andresegde's comment above: When I read "and the poll becomes a total mess of contradicting viewpoints", it occurred to me that andresegde may not fully appreciate the purpose of the poll. The poll is not for consumption here (at least not at this moment); rather, this is the place where the poll will be constructed prior to the execution of the poll in front of a (very) wide audience. The point of the poll text is precisely to present the entire range of viewpoints—and to describe that as "a total mess of contradicting" is a pejorative view that I (and others) don't support. To be sure, the poll text is a work in progress, and it is concomitant on those present here to construct the poll text so that it presents as many viewpoints and pieces of evidence as possible—with the aim that the eventually !voters can assess that evidence before commenting. I believe that a very good start on that ideal has been made (although there is plenty of time and reason for improvement); and I commend the efforts of all who have spent the time and made the effort to help resolve this issue. GFHandel ♬  22:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Regarding andresegde's comment above concerning his allegation that I "tried to control the comments": Jburlinson posted a suggestion to the poll text which included his signature, so after a little discussion, and since it was germane to the issue, I moved his suggestion (sans signature) into the poll text. His suggestion is still in the poll text, although broadened to apply to all choices. I will note that Jburlinson has not objected to my housekeeping edit. GFHandel ♬[  23:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC) My encounter with Andreasedge on the talk page at Pete Best [1] [2] proved to me he was someone I was unlikely to be able to collaborate with. I mostly stayed away from this mediation (I do note here that I'm a "small t" adherent) after the recent discussion at ANI [3] again proved to me that he is deeply unrepentant and incapable of contrition, with him going so far as to award barnstars [4] that term his critics "vicious barbarians" despite community consensus which resulted in a year topic-ban from Beatles-related articles. Given the clearly intractable nature of the person you are trying to mediate with, as demonstrated on this mediation page, I suggest that an Rfc/U for Andreasedge is in order. I am not sure where that leaves this mediation, frankly. The problem is that the point of diminishing returns appears to be reached here, in my view. Jusdafax 00:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Since andreasgde is topic-banned from the articles in question, he could in theory be removed by consensus without affecting future collaboration (at least, for the duration of the ban). The mediators take seriously the allegations of his incivility, tendentiousness, and disruption, and it seems clear to me that failure to act at this point would be failure to uphold the level of civility which we promised in opening this mediation. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Just to clarify the above, any potential RfC/U would have to be based on activities outside the mediation. MedCom policy protects all participants from sanctions based on their actions in a formal mediation. Thus, if an RfC/U is opened, I will do my best to ensure that andreasgde is not penalized for his actions here. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Jusdafax's comments are a perfect example of WP:Wikihounding: "joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work ... Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." Please stop this editor from doing this.--andreasegde (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC) The above accusation of Wikihounding should be redacted by Andreasegde. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC) I offer to strike or redact my comments in this section if Andreasegde will do likewise. Jusdafax 04:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC) I believe that Andreasegde does have a case, and his comments, along with those of Jusdafax, ought to be left here.--Patthedog (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC) "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" represent personal attacks. "Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links". Giving Andreasegde the benefit of the doubt that those Jusdafax has followed him around the site for the purposes of harrassment, I encourage him to clarify which discussions he intends to refer to, by posting links and diffs, if necessary, to avoid violating WP:NPA. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC) I don't need to, as the editor in question has already done that above. Do his comments about myself have anything to do with mediation?--andreasegde (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Miscellaneous issues to be discussed

• Issue - As ordering the options would be inherently hierarchical, and thus potential for bias could arise from an option's particular place in the running order, I suggest that when the time comes, the order of the options be randomly determined. Also, they should not be numbered or lettered. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as upper/lower sure. But logically the neither one should go last. Hot Stop 14:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Why should any of the three options have an advantage over the other two? A random order is the only way to ensure fairness to all three options. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Concern -- On Aug. 14, I added the following point to the evidence for upper case section of the poll: *The current Wikipedia Manual of Style states that lower-case should be used. This did not resolve the controversy long-term. Inconsistencies abound. Many editors apparently instinctively resist failing to capitalize the "T" in "The" if they believe that the word "The" is an official part of a band's name."

This was summarily deleted with a comment that it was biased and tended to "lead" the Ivoter. It seems to me that all the "evidence" being adduced here is an attempt to influence the voter. I thought we were supposed to be constructing a poll that would provide the voter with food for thought as he/she makes a decision. We (the people constructing the poll) don't have to agree with all the points; we're simply putting forward ideas and trusting that the voter will use their good judgment.

One of the points against the "neither" option (the "triangular diplomacy" option) is that it's failed to resolve the controversy. The same could be said about the current MoS -- it also has failed to eliminate inconsistent usage. Depending on the outcome of the poll and the mediation, it's entirely possible that the MoS might be revised. It seems to me that it would need to be revised if the outcome of the poll were in favor of either the "upper case" or the "neither" option.

Finally, a participant unilaterally deleting a submission with no opportunity for give and take doesn't seem to accord with the spirit of this mediation process. Jburlinson (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If I could chime in here with some non-official comments, the first issue seems to be the difference between "persuade" and "manipulate". That is, even though the purpose of the sections is to be "biased" in favor of a particular view, they should present their cases in an honest, forthright way. The phrasing

Inconsistencies abound. Many editors apparently instinctively resist failing to capitalize the "T" in "The" if they believe that the word "The" is an official part of a band's name."

generates more heat than light. This is due to the fact that it attributes undemonstrated motives to the opposing party. "Inconsistencies abound" is too terse to be useful. To address the issue of whether it was appropriate to delete it, I suggest that a "one revert rule" on the poll text be considered as the best compromise between expedience and cooperation. In other words, any editor is free to add, delete, or change text (with an explanation, even just in the edit summary), and any other editor is free to revert it — once. If the first editor still prefers the other version, it then has to be discussed here, just as editors on a controversial article are expected to "take it to the talk page" instead of revert warring. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. How about if I re-insert the point leaving out the offending phrases? Jburlinson (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment -- This mediation has been an interesting and instructive process. After the mediators specifically requested participants to come up with additional "evidence" for the "upper case" and "neither" options, I have attempted to do so, in the spirit of fair play and balance. Nearly every single attempt to provide such input has been challenged in one way or another. Sometimes the disputes have taken place in the appropriate discussion sections below, which seems reasonable enough to me. But often, submissions have been edited with no explanation and even deleted outright with minimal comment, and certainly no consensus that I can see. The latest deletion is a particularly interesting one, since part of the point being made by the deleted passage was retooled as a point against the "neither" option. I now notice that part of the historical record regarding this latest deletion has itself been deleted. Jburlinson (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Jburlinson, we all appreciate your efforts here and we want you to participate. IMO, the issues with your additions are derived from a perceived lack of objectivity of the statements. Avoid speculation, personal opinions and WP:OR. Use WP:RSs to make statements of unambiguously verifiable fact that do not lead, manipulate, or otherwise instruct the !voter how to think. If you can add factual statements that are backed by WP:RSs then I predict fewer of your additions will be challenged or removed. Again, thanks for participating, but try to make your contributions less manipulative. For example, you suggested that the "Neither" option is uncontroversial: 1) The poll language should not be advising the !voter as to which options are more or less controversial, 2) Go to the Rolling Stones article and tell them that they cannot use the band's name mid-sentence and you will see how inaccurate it is to state that "Neither" avoids controversy. 3) Please do not use other wikipedia articles as evidence for anything, they are not reliable sources and should not be used here. Afterall, the definite articles in the Paul McCartney article are all small-case mid-sentence, but is that really evidence for "the"? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

re: you suggested that the "Neither" option is uncontroversial: When did I ever suggest such a thing? I've never said that this option is uncontroversial. Obviously, all of the options are controversial; that's why there's so much controversy. Jburlinson (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

For example, you added this: From a stylistic perspective, repetition of the band's name in mid-sentence can become wearying through redundancy. Use of a pronoun (e.g. "they", "them") or anaphora ("the group", "the band") is not only a simple expedient to avoid the controversy, but, in many cases, can lead to more graceful prose. Which is implying that "Neither" avoids controversy and leads to "more graceful prose", the first assertion is untrue, and the second applies to all options and is not exclusive to "Neither". ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No -- I wasn't implying that "neither" avoids all controversy; I was stating that it avoids the specific controversy that is the subject of this mediation: "the/The" when used in mid-sentence. That's why I used the definite article in the phrase: "a simple expedient to avoid the controversy". "The" controversy in this case is the one we're all involved in. I think that's why "triangular diplomacy" was dreamed up in the first place, as an expedient to finesse the disagreement on lower-case/upper-case "t". That it generated even more controversy is kind of ironic. Jburlinson (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable if we simply say that the "Neither" option "Avoids the capitalization controversy"? Another argument for "Neither" might be something like: "By choosing to use neither style, Wikipedia recognizes that there exists a genuine controversy, and avoids linguistic prescription." Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a great suggestion. Thanks. Jburlinson (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) While "Neither" may avoid the capitalisation controversy, it merely shifts the issue to one of grammar/sentence structure. Its really just swapping one controversy for another, so I am against suggesting or singling out any of the three options as more or less controversial. That would be leading the !voter, IMO. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Does the version I suggested (which Jburlinson put up) work for you? Oops, I guess it doesn't. Okay, basically what I mean by it "avoiding linguistic prescription" is that since reliable sources have used both versions, we avoid "taking sides" and implicitly recommending one style over the other. Yes, the "Neither" option is controversial — but that controversy is internal to Wikipedia. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) No, it does not. I stand by my comments that we should not lead the !voter by declaring "Neither" the option that avoids controversy, it did not avoid controversy. Also, how does "Neither" "avoid linguistic prescription"? That's exactly what it does, it prescribes how we can construct sentences. At any rate, I've stated my case here and I will let others weigh-in. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we have a minor miscommunication here — of course "Neither" prescribes how articles should be written. That's why I'm personally against it. But it's prescriptive only in the context of writing articles on Wikipedia. In other words, adopting it as a solution avoids the potential for people to say "Wikipedia uses The/the Beatles. That must be the 'official' style." If the articles are well written, the casual reader will never notice the absence of "The/the Beatles". Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit that I'm not sure what the disagreement is all about. If the evidence and arguments aren't meant to lead the !voter, then why are we bothering to call them "evidence" and "arguments"? The only other potential solution I can see is to just open a poll without comment on the options' respective merits, with links to previous discussions on the topic. And that would seem like an unprofessional way of handling this thing, in my opinion.

That said, any "leading" that is done ought to be accurate. Since the "neither" standard is the one we've been operating under for quite some time, and since we're here, it's clear that it didn't avoid controversy. Perhaps we could add some more background on the most recent "consensus", as I think that option is really the only one that has been tested in the field, so to speak.

But even assuming that "Neither" does avoid the capitalisation controversy (and I'm not convinced that it does), all we really end up with is confusion. New content writers that show up are going to use either "the Beatles" or "The Beatles" mid-sentence at some point, and we'll be back here. It's a total non-solution. Always has been, so let's not sugar-coat it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on why you're not convinced that "Neither" "avoid[s] the capitalisation controversy"? It doesn't avoid the whole controversy (clearly, since we're here) but it does "avoid" (or perhaps "dodge") the choice between "The" and "the". Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• From the Beatles:

Stu Sutcliffe ... suggested changing the band's name to Beatals as a tribute to Buddy Holly and the Crickets.[10] They used the name through May, when they became the Silver Beetles, before undertaking a brief tour of Scotland as the backing group for pop singer and fellow Liverpudlian Johnny Gentle. By early July they changed their name to the Silver Beatles, and by the middle of August to The Beatles.[11]

Under "Neither", how would this paragraph even be possible? If this option precludes specific types of sentences, then its controversial to me. On the other hand, both "the" and "The" do not hinder or constrain prose, and use of either would not change this paragraph. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess I should clarify on that. In my opinion, the whole "Neither" option has been an ineffective nonstarter since it was first proposed. The original wording of the consensus was that "mid-sentence usage of the/The Beatles" should be "minimized". As I've pointed out a few times, to minimize something is not to render it nonexistent. The lead sections of the articles for each individual band member are a perfect example. John Lennon's:

John Winston Ono Lennon, MBE (9 October 1940 – 8 December 1980) was an English musician, singer and songwriter who rose to worldwide fame as a founder member of The Beatles...

So, how do we work around that in the event that "neither" wins the poll? I see two solutions:

John Winston Ono Lennon, MBE (9 October 1940 – 8 December 1980) was an English musician, singer and songwriter who rose to worldwide fame as a founder member of a certain band...

or

The Beatles were a band whose founding line-up included John Winston Ono Lennon, MBE (9 October 1940 – 8 December 1980), who was an English musician, singer and songwriter...

I could be wrong, but if the "Neither" option is going to be enforced, I can't see how it could get much better than that. I am open to suggestions and clarifications, of course. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think it boils down to this: all three options are controversial depending on who you ask, but only "Neither" restricts and constrains prose. So if we insist on including: "Avoids the controversy of 'The/the' mid-sentence", as evidence for "Neither", then we should also include: "Avoids the controversy of 'Neither', which mandates a prohibition against mid-sentence usage of the band's name", as evidence for "the" and "The". ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Suggestion - Currently, the lists of sources in the "The/the" sections are prefaced with:

An incalculable number of high-quality, printed sources used to source Wikipedia articles related to The Beatles use an upper-case definite article mid-sentence.

and

The vast majority of high-quality, printed sources used to source Wikipedia articles related to the Beatles use a lower-case definite article mid-sentence. Wikipedia should be consistent with the overwhelming consensus in published books dealing with the Beatles, including:

I suggest both these descriptions be removed, leaving just the neutral description ('Click on "show"...'). Giving the exact number of sources listed would also make it more informative. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 11:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. I'll change the uppercase entry. Thanks. Jburlinson (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

While I hate to disagree with you Feezo, I believe "The vast majority of high-quality, printed sources used to source Wikipedia articles related to the Beatles use a lower-case definite article mid-sentence" is a statement of fact supported by the sources. I would not agree with the statement's removal while "there appears to be an existing unacknowledged, and perhaps unconscious, practical consensus slightly favoring capital "T"" and "Where there is consistency throughout a given article, however, the tendency is to use upper-case "T"" remain in evidence for "The". ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Support for "Neither"

In the last few days, there's been a fair amount of discussion by opponents of the "Neither" option. Although the mediators share their views, we are equally intent on giving a fair hearing to the option's proponents. The poll was created with 3 options due to the reaction against the mediators' original dismissal of "Neither". Supporters of "Neither" are thus invited to identify themselves in this section, and to respond to the arguments that have been raised against it. If there is still support for "Neither", I ask that opponents not make rebuttals in this section, but either in "Miscellaneous issues", or a new section. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments on Support for "Neither"

• I am not a proponent of "neither" as an option in the poll. I have, however, made some suggestions for evidence for "neither", primarily because the mediators asked for such suggestions. Although my arguments did not convince myself, I thought they might have been appropriate to someone who favored this option. To be honest, I'm not sure if the original idea for "neither" or what used to be called "triangular diplomacy" actually intended to flat out prohibit the use of the band's name in mid-sentence at all times, but only to encourage editors to minimize its use in order to dampen the proliferation of inconsistencies in dozens of articles. For that reason, I don't believe the original proponents of the compromise would have been pleased to have it used to inflame a further controversy, but maybe I'm misreading their motives.

At any rate, I'd like to suggest a further compromise -- to wit:

Delete "neither" as a third option in the poll, but add a note of some sort to the "Editor comments" section of the poll that would state something like: "Previous attempts to resolve this controversy have included a "gentleman's agreement" to minimize use of the band's name in mid-sentence. While this ingenious diplomatic effort might have limited the proliferation of inconsistent usages, it did not resolve the controversy and it cannot be considered as a definitive solution. Editors are always free to employ this strategy for stylistic purposes; but it is not an option in this poll because there are situations in which it is impossible to avoid the use of the band's name in running prose, and the WP community needs to arrive at a consensus on standard usage." Jburlinson (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If there's no support for "Neither" in the next few days, I'll go ahead and implement Jburlinson's suggestion in the following way (feel free to tweak). Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Previous attempts to resolve this controversy have included an agreement to minimise use of the band's name mid-sentence. Although this agreement resulted in a "truce" for a little over a year, the resulting formal mediation case shows that it did not ultimately resolve the issue.
More seriously, "minimisation" of mid-sentence usage can only be a definitive solution if it is interpreted as a mandatory ban on all mid-sentence usage of "The/the Beatles". During mediation, it was concluded that this would place an excessive restriction of language on a large number of articles. Such a restriction would necessitate far-reaching changes to Wikipedia's manual of style, and would require a site-wide RfC at minimum.
For these reasons, the choice of "minimising mid-sentence usage" is not an option in this poll.

Tagging

I have to say that I agree with removing the {{cn}} and {{or}} tags from the poll. Both tags, but especially {{or}}, only apply in article space. As an observer, I would conclude that tags might be used to make an opponent's claims seem weaker, without actually challenging them. Thus, I suggest that suspect claims be individually brought up for discussion or research, and that we avoid applying further tags to the poll. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. All the the {{cn}} and {{or}} tags should be removed from the poll. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Aren't they all gone now though? Hot Stop 05:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No, there were two in "Evidence for lower-case", I removed them. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The trademark argument

As it has yet to be determined at this mediation if it's an issue of relevance, I think we should discuss the trademark issue before our poll goes "live". A main concern here is that we are linking to a legal document as evidence that the band's name is TMed; however, the document only proves that it is TMed, not which case should be used. Also, the legal document cited to as evidence uses "The", which might give the impression to !voters that a court has in some way endorsed an upper-case definite article when in reality, the court case merely states that Apple indeed has a protected TM in "THE BEATLES" and "BEATLES" but it is not making a judgement on the capitalisation issue one way or the other.

• "The Beatles" is a registered trade mark of Apple Corps Ltd.[1] and the MoS says to capitalize trademarks in general.

a) This may constitute a WP:NLT violation as it appears to imply that Wikipedia is under some legal obligation to capitalise "the", which it is not to my knowledge.

b) The same MoS guideline also says: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official".

So, "capitalize trademarks in general" would seem to be a half-truth and a misleading statement.

c) Assuming that this statement is in no way a NLT vio, it is at face, an MoS based argument, which would seem to contradict the assertion that other MoS based arguments for "the" are not valid, but somehow this particular sentence frag supporting "The" is valid, a contradiction likely to cause confusion.

d) No one here has yet to establish that "the Beatles" is not capitalised; based on my research it would appear that the capital "B" takes care of our concern in terms of capitalising a proper name or TM. However, this bullet point implies that only "The Beatles" is capped while "the Beatles" is not. This needs further discussion before preceeding with a poll.

For example: Sly and the Family Stone, Derek and the Dominos, Country Joe and the Fish and Big Brother and the Holding Company. Despite a lower-case definite article in each of the preceeding band names, I assume few would argue that, as they are written here, they are not capitalised.

In summary: If we proceed with the poll allowing both sides to make a trademark based argument, and we later confirm that TMs are not relevent to this mediation, then our poll could be considered by some invalid, biased, leading and/or confusing. Which are or course the main reasons for the new poll in the first place. Any thoughts? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

As you point out, the legal document itself consistently uses uppercase "T" whenever it mentions The Beatles. So not only does the court endorse its use, it instantiates its use. Perhaps the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania could be cited as another primary source supporting uppercase usage? Jburlinson (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

My point is that the court case does not deal with the capitalisation issue at all, also, the case is pertaining to commerce and thus irrelevant here. See www.johnlennon.com for a website using small-case and selling music. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps citing "the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania" as an argument for upper-case could be broadly construed as a legal threat. Afterall, if you say a court has decided this issue aren't you implying there is a legal authority/precedent on the matter? Isn't that implying Wikipedia faces legal consequences for using "the"? We need a TM lawyer to weigh-in and I have asked the Wikimedia general counsel to do so. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you contending that I have made a legal threat against WikiPedia? If so, let me assure you, and the Wikimedia general counsel, that such was not my intent. If you're asking me if I was implying that Wikipedia is in legal jeopardy of some sort, the answer is a resounding no. What I was stating was actually very straightforward -- in a memorandum authored by the Court, the phrase "The Beatles", capital "T", is used with consistency. Nothing more, nothing less. How you can call that a threat against WP on my part is simply beyond me.

Being accused of threatening Wikipedia is quite discomfiting to me: so much so that I will abstain from any further participation in this process other than to vote if and when that eventuality ever truly arises. Naturally, I'll abide by the results of the mediation, as I promised to do at the beginning of the process. Jburlinson (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Jburlinson, I was in no way suggesting that you were threatening legal action, you have misunderstood my point here. I was suggesting that anyone who is implying a legal obligation to use "The" based on TM law is implying Wikipedia is in legal jeopardy by not capping "the". So that leaves us with the MoS, which specifically states: "Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g. "Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues." ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• It may be instructive to look at the official John Lennon website, hosted by EMI Group Limited. There they use "the Beatles" thoughout and they sell music and merchandise. So if Apple's TM was such that they could sue for misuse then this would seem to be an ideal opportunity. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Take a look at one of the 2009 remaster CD cases, on the back it says "Beatles" is a registered TM of Apple. So as I added in evidence for "the", using "Beatles" mid-sentence may require a definite article for proper grammar, but it is not in any way changing or altering their TM, "Beatles". ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The Beatles trademark document signed by all four Beatles in 1964 specifies "THE BEATLES". The one page that is displayed at the link contains an instance of this, but quotes several other places in the document where the word "The" is included. My guess is that each time it appears it's probably in all caps. I wonder if we should offer a third option (fourth option?) in the poll for all caps. :) Jburlinson (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, which brings up another point. If "The Beatles" wasn't TMed until November 1964, then it would not apply to references to the band prior to November 1964 (May 1960-October 1964). Then, after it expired in 1971 through its re-registering in 1988, it would seem to also not apply. Anyway, this is all a strawman/deadend IMO. We are not engaged in commerce at Wikipedia therefore the TM law does not even apply to us, at all. This needs to be decided before the poll goes live. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Reference works have historically never styled trademarks the way trademark holders would prefer. Even if there were consensus as to how the Beatles trademark were styled (there isn't), it would be irrelevant to the discussion at hand. --Lukobe (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll summarize the facts:

1. "THE BEATLES" and "BEATLES" are the variations of the mark currently on file in the UK and, presumably, the US.
2. Trademark litigation does not account for capitalisation. It is just as much a trademark violation to use "the beatles" on unlicensed, official-looking products as it is to use "The Beatles", "THE BEATLES", "the Beatles", or "thE bEatLES".
3. Neither Wikipedia nor any other entity is under any legal obligation whatsoever to use any particular capitalisation scheme for any trademark in any case. Those who believe otherwise are invited to bring forward relevant case law from anywhere in the world which proves that contention.
4. Fair use allows Wikipedia to use the mark (the mark in this case being both "BEATLES" and "THE BEATLES"), and to capitalise it however we damn well please.

Hence, issues of trademark have absolutely no bearing on this discussion. If someone believes any of my points above to be in error, I'd like to hear about it. Otherwise, we should stop talking about this immediately. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

As I've pointed out before: the capitalisation of the trade mark itself is not the issue. The argument that has been raised before (and as sure as you want to be, will be raised again when the poll starts) is whether the trademarking of "the beatles" means that "the" is part of the band's official name; and if it is, then shouldn't WP use "The Beatles"? I'm not saying it should or shouldn't (in this little blurb), however I feel it is important for the argument I've outlined to be handled in both the upper-case and lower-case poll text so that when editors come to consider the issue, they have guidance in coming to their own conclusion. GFHandel ♬  01:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

How does your above logic apply to Sly and the Family Stone, Derek and the Dominos, Country Joe and the Fish and Big Brother and the Holding Company? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't look at that as an argument, though. To be frank, I look at it as nonsense (that's not a comment on your formulation of it, just on it in general). People have said it before, but that doesn't mean it's a correct or even a valid way of looking at this. Nothing, in the manual of style, trademark law, or anywhere else, leads me to believe that the contention over whether "the" is part of the name has any relevance to this case. And I don't think we ought to be weighing the poll down with irrelevant information. I don't want it included in the poll for the same reason I don't want a list of Ukrainian prime ministers included in the poll. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind either way, but I feel I have to remind editors here about something that is easily lost: that you must think like impartial editors who are considering the poll issues for the first time. Just because editors here just "know" how it should be, does not mean that everyone who comes along to !vote has the same insight. I'm certainly not going to get bogged down here in debating the efficacy of such arguments, however I know that the trademark issue has been raised in previous polls (and, unlike the consideration of the list of Ukrainian prime ministers), may well sway !voters in this poll (which is fine—as long as they are doing so based on reasoned arguments presented to them in the poll text). Good luck with it. GFHandel ♬  02:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Could they TM "the Beatles" if "the" wasn't a part of their name? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, but I'm hoping that you are starting to see the point I'm making? Why don't you enter the implications of your question as part of the lower-case argument so that !voters can consider it? GFHandel ♬  02:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

To clarify: Are you claiming that if "the" is officially part of their name then its cased closed in favour of upper-case and !voters should be instructed as such? If so why, and what specific evidence do you have for this? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm obviously not good at making my point, so after this post I will give up trying. In a nutshell: craft your poll text to anticipate the points that !voters will (fairly or unfairly) raise, and aim to give them guidance in reaching the outcome your case is promoting (and of course the same is true for the other case). (PS. The blue background defining the entire poll text has been chopped off by the collapsible section. That should be addressed prior to the commencement of the poll.) GFHandel ♬  02:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The trademark is for "BEATLES" and "THE BEATLES", not "The Beatles". Certainly we wouldn't use "BEATLES" in an article, and the MOS is clear that standard text formatting applies, i.e., it is Kiss not KISS (referring to the rock band). I don't see how the trademark necessarily calls for upper case "T" when using standard formatting and it's clear the MOS overrides trademarks anyway. Piriczki (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Implied repercussions of the poll/mediation

• "The resolution of this mediation could potentially affect usage in articles for all such bands."

I have a concern that this is not as accurate as it should be. I filed this mediation for three articles, all Beatles related, and I never intended to declare this a Wikipedia wide initiative. I think this language is alarmist and misleading. Why would a consensus at Beatles articles effect other band articles per se? For example, the arguments above for "the" do not apply to The Who, which is itself a grammatical error, juxtaposing a definite article with a pronoun. I stand corrected, thanks Lukobe ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• • In the name "the Who," "Who" is not a pronoun. It is a noun. --Lukobe (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• If the poll is not binding on the !voters then why would the poll results be binding on editors at other articles? Or, how could it be? They are not being afforded any input here, nor are they agreeing to this mediation. Are we correct to imply that the poll results will have any bearing whatsoever on un-related band article pages? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

This is why the poll & the mediation are of such significance. Unless the intent is to put "the/The Beatles" into some totally special category, then the outcome will be relevant to all bands with names constructed of "the/The" something. I suppose one could say that there are a handful of bands that are so distinctively named that standard rules don't apply (like The Who, The Band, The The); but "The Beatles", as a band name, is not really like those special cases. Jburlinson (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• In the papers that I used to read in the 60s and 70s (NME, Record Mirror, Melody Maker...) it was always 'the Who', 'the Band', alongside 'Sly and the Family Stone' etc. No one ever capitalised the 'the' midsentence, which is why this argument seems so crazy to me. As for the The themselves, I have seen a website with it written thus (no need for them to be egregious, after all). Rothorpe (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that there is no difference between the Who, the Band, the The, and the Beatles. In each case, the (first) "the" is an article, and the second word is a noun. --Lukobe (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm missing the point of the poll. Would not the outcome of the poll have some effect on the outcome of the mediation, which in turn might have consequences for the MoS? Suppose the results of the poll reveal a massive preference for uppercase "The". What would be the practical consequence of such a result other than a resolution of the mediation in favor of uppercase "T" and a consequent change to the MoS? If not, why in the world would we need to have a poll at all? Is it your intention that the results of this poll would be determinative for only three WP articles and for no other articles? I asked this question weeks ago and the response was that the mediation would be applicable to all articles on The Beatles. Is that not the case? Is the poll going to be presented to !voters as exclusively relevant to only three articles? That would be pretty confusing, IMO. Jburlinson (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

In my mind this mediation had to do with all articles related to the Beatles, I listed three for brevity (band, member, album). ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

But is the outcome for the mediation only relevant to The Beatles? Once again, supposing that uppercase "The" wins the poll. This would end the mediation and we all would agree to use "The Beatles." How would this be communicated to other editors other than an amendment to the MoS? Would the current MoS stand as is with an exception made for "The Beatles"? Jburlinson (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't pretend to know what the potential outcome of "The" would be, beyond its use in Beatles articles. As far as the MoS is concerned, it already says to not cap the definite article in a band name and several articles are currently ignoring this guideline, including the Beatles. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

If that's what the MoS says about band names, it should be case closed. --Lukobe (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g. "Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues." ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflict, Lukobe. Welcome along! I agree with every word you say. Rothorpe (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think the result of this mediation absolutely should be binding across the board, with the exception of problematic cases like The The, which in my opinion really ought to be double-capitalised. The Who is a borderline case, but in that situation I would be inclined not to capitalise the definite article, since "Who" can be properly interpreted as a noun in that context. Relevant discussions on a band-by-band basis can follow, where the proper rule isn't made necessarily clear by this mediation or a strict comparison to the Beatles isn't possible.

Regardless, I believe it would be up to the mediators and to the community at large to declare the mediation binding elsewhere. I would prefer to see that done once this goes up for a vote (which, I will stress again, needs to be highly publicised project-wide). But right now, it's just about the Beatles. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

From the moment I saw this dispute about the/The in regard to band names, I knew that its solution would be a far-reaching one, applicable to all band names except the very stylized ones such as Tha Eastsidaz and Tha Doggpound. Probably The The would be another outlier, but I think the Who would be the same as all the others. Yes, we should broadcast this poll across Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Poll judge

Coren

Coren is willing to serve as judge of the poll. As a former arbitrator, he is highly qualified, and is trusted by the community. However, as he points out, he did sanction a participant — does this open the door to questioning his impartiality? Or was that simply a user conduct issue not directly tied to the content issue under mediation? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Coren has sanctioned no less than three of our prior participants and in direct relation to some of the disruption caused at the previous polls. While I think they are a fantastic candidate, I am concerned that they may be viewed as involved, having protected my talk page and been accused of bias and conspiracy in my favour by more than one of the parties to the dispute. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Which ones? I couldn't find any block logs Hot Stop 01:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

He who must not be named was indefinitely blocked by Coren. Not sure who the other two Gabe's referring to are. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Andreasedge and Penyulap. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad

Any concerns about Newyorkbrad as poll judge? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing but respect for NYB, but I do have some concern about him being chosen since another arbitrator (SilkTork) is listed as a party (though ST hasn't participated much, if at all). Regardless, I'd still support NYB. On a side note, it might be a good idea to have multiple judges. Hot Stop 01:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Seems like a fine choice to me. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Looks great from here, and he doesn't bring the potential non-neutrality accusations that Coren might. Let's do it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Binksternet (talk) 04:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Rothorpe (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Good call. Jusdafax 01:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Results

Looks like we have a decision. (Although, if someone has reservations, they are encouraged to speak up.) With this level of confidence, do we really need an appellate judge? It was described as "optional" in the original proposal, so it's up to you. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 05:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd oppose having an appellate judge. But I would support having another two judges weigh the consensus with NYB. I have no suggestions on who, but it might be wise to make sure one is British, to eliminate concern over ENGVAR issues. Hot Stop 15:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Hot Stop in that a three-person panel of judges would be preferable to an appellate venue. Without having notified them, let me suggest User:Art LaPella (American), User:Ruhrfisch (American), User:SarekOfVulcan (American), User:SlimVirgin (British), User:PBS (British), User:Dougweller (British), User:Kusma (German), and User:CBM (not sure of nationality.) Certainly one of the judges should be British. All of these admins have recently contributed to Wikipedia's manual of style and article naming discussions. Looking at block logs for participants, I have not found a reason why any of these admins would have to recuse. Binksternet (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

How about User:Sandstein or User:Dennis Brown? I agree that if we decide on a three judge panel one should be British. I think User:Dougweller is a fine choice. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Though also a fine choice, User:SarekOfVulcan, !voted in the recent Sgt Pepper poll. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I have reservations about a multi-judge panel, since it wasn't part of the proposed poll that some of the participants (who are now inactive, but still part of the mediation) agreed on. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Would your reservations dissipate if one judge was helped by two assistants? Binksternet (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It's up to Newyorkbrad. If we're trusting him to make the call, he can designate assistants as he sees fit. One or two "clerks" might be helpful for verifying source material and checking for sockpuppetry, but the final decision would still be up to the judge. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 00:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion - Since "Neither" is no longer an option in the poll, and the mediators have not made any public judgements on "the" or "The", why not ask NYB to judge, and let the mediators independently certify the results? Any thoughts? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, that would be simpler. There was no agreement for a multi-judge panel. Rothorpe (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. Binksternet (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, we'll go with that. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 00:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Poll duration and decisive outcome %

• I suggest the poll run for 4-6 weeks, and the threshold for a decisive outcome be set at a minimum of 67%. That way, an option would require twice as many supports as the other option to declare a decisive outcome (pending initial judgement and a potential appellate review of course). ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Not so sure about that. Consensus is not just numbers but strength of reasoning in debate. Anyone can just come along and cast a !vote, but it is the weight of reasoning that should carry the day, in my view. Still, overwhelming numbers are a big convincer. Jusdafax 06:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%, and I assume NYB will approach the closure accordingly, weighing the consensus based on more than numerical majority alone. What do you think of the time frame? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the idea behind a "decisive outcome" threshold, is that nobody is expected to be bound by a poll that comes out 51-49, and we need a clear consensus to consider the poll influential. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Gabe, over a month is excessive. 2 to 4 weeks is better, as I see it. Jusdafax 07:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. 28 days is long enough. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

A month is standard for an RFC. I see no reason why this should be any different. Hot Stop 15:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notifications

We should probably decide where to publicize notices of the poll. WP:BEATLES, WP:WPMU, maybe a village pump and the MOS talk page. Thoughts? Hot Stop 15:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The broader the exposure the better. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Those sound like good ideas, but I'm going to take this opportunity to mention watchlist notices one more time. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Evan, be sure to share your ideas for increasing exposure with Feezo and/or Strad. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

While watchlist notices are undeniably effective, I can't help thinking that such a global announcement for an issue as apparently trivial as capitalization might look undeserved. See Amalthea's post at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details for a good explanation. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 10:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Running order

I suggested above that the running-order of the options in the poll should be determined randomly. I still think this is a good idea. Any thoughts? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Simple suggestion: If the last digit of the Dow on Monday's close is even (and not zero) then uppercase will be listed first. (If it's zero, we'll take a mulligan). Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. To clarify: Do you mean the very last number before the decimals, or the last published decimal number? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

After the decimal point: cents = x * 10 + (2,4,6,8) vs. cents = x * 10 + (3,5,7,9). Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Err, forget what I said about a mulligan. The cases are (0,2,4,6,8) = uppercase first vs. (1,3,5,7,9) = lowercase first. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Lessee... how can I game that? ;^)

Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like lower-case is up first. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A look at the "evidence" for upper case

This accurately titled "rough sampling" section is OR by its own admission and uses Wikipedia as a source, so it should be disregarded. Also, let's not forget that the MoS (mistakenly in my view) allows capital T in wikilinks. Rothorpe (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, not that it matters much, but only one of the articles listed in the graph are FA, and none are GA. The one FA example (the Kinks) has a major proponent of "The" as a top five contributor. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, as was brought up regarding {{or}} tags, the prohibitions on original research and not citing Wikipedia apply when dealing with factual information in the main namespace. Since this is a stylistic decision, it seems reasonable to look at what Wikipedia common practice already is. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 00:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC) (edited 16:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC))

Fair enough. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Misleading evidence for lowercase

In the evidence for lowercase there's a list of bands who use a lowercase "The" in the title (Rage Against the Machine, Sly and the Family Stone, etc). None of them are relevant, however, because this dispute is about a band whose name has a "The" at the begining of their name, and not in the middle. Hot Stop 04:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Two Questions - In Sly and the Family Stone, what is the name of the band leader and what is the name of the band? Isn't "the middle" kinda like mid-sentence or running-prose? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't, because there are different conventions for where the "The" is. It's a different situation if a title starts with "The" compared to merely having "the" elsewhere. Hot Stop 05:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Two Questions - In Maurice Williams and the Zodiacs, what is the name of the band leader and what is the name of the band? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The name of the band is Maurice Williams and the Zodiacs. Hot Stop 05:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Some would say the band leader is Maurice Williams, and his band is the Zodiacs. People refer to Hendrix and the Experience as though they were separate entities. Tom Petty's band is called the Heartbreakers, Smokey Robinson's the Miracles, Martha Reeves' the Vandellas etcetera. At any rate, its perfectly fine to show the !voters how other Wikipedia articles are treated. Wasn't that the point of this restoration of a previously deleted point? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope, and I'd prefer you stop misquoting me. I'd get in a pissing contest with you, except it's like banging my hide against the wall. My point in posting here was to let one of the mediators review it, not debate semantics. Hot Stop 05:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

And it's The Jimi Hendrix experience, not Hendrix and the Experience as you suggest. But why let the facts get in the way. Hot Stop 05:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

"In February, the Experience traveled to Seattle, giving Hendrix an opportunity to see his family."(Copyright 2007 by Experience Hendrix LLC) ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Here. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

While I do agree to a certain extent that "_____ & the _____" can be considered the entirety of the band's name, I do think there may also be some legitimacy to the idea that these articles could be affected by the outcome of this mediation. The style guides with which I am familiar (though I haven't checked any of them in a while) would not make a distinction between a definite article at the beginning of a band name or in the middle of a band name (unlike the case for artistic and literary works, which are to be rendered in running prose as The Lord of the Rings, etc.), so in the event that we overturn the longstanding style which is in favor of decapitalized "the" at the beginning of band names, that then certainly opens up the question of what we're going to do with a "the" in the middle of band names, since we would be essentially making up the rules of the English language as we go along, at that point. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Lots of manuals of style recommend a lowercase 'the' in running prose, including bands with 'the' at the beginning, and 'the' in the middle. However, I agree with Hot Stop that such examples do not belong in this poll. Binksternet (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not? Do you think this example belongs in the poll, if so why, if not why not? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The point of the evidence is simple, why not: Sly and The Family Stone, Derek and The Dominos, Country Joe and The Fish and Toad The Wet Sprocket? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Just had a re-think and realized that my last comment might not have been totally clear. So I'll dispense with the wordiness and just say that I do think it's completely acceptable for us to have the examples of "_____ & the _____" mentioned in the text of the poll. It is good for !voters to be as fully informed as possible, and the fact that an uppercase decision would be fundamentally changing the way we do things in regards to band name capitalisation means that it very much should be mentioned. As far as the rules of grammar are concerned, whether a band name is "Long John and the Silver Beetles" (to pick a random example) or just "the Beatles" is irrelevant. Capitalisation rules are the same regardless and the decision we make here with doubtlessly have an impact on cases like that; Gabe is in the right to point that out. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant addition to evidence

I am concerned about this:

Upper-case is also the standard for articles not relating to bands. The Tempest, The Hobbit, The Avengers, The Guardian, The Hague, etc.

It was added to the evidence for upper-case by User:Hot Stop yesterday. As I see it, this is triply irrelevant for our purposes because

1. Since we are discussing band names and, as Hot Stop very rightly pointed out, those articles are not, this is a great example of the sorts of arguments WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aims to prevent.

2. Every one of the examples of literary works given is governed by grammatical and MoS guidelines separate entirely from the issue of band names. In particular, "most titles of artistic works" would seem to be the relevant clause of the MoS. For The Hague, the MoS is also very helpful when it gives the specific example, "public transport in The Hague". These are very specific exceptions, which have very specific and long-established rationales in the English language. They are defined by universally accepted standards of grammar that have nothing at all to do with the present discussion.

3. Likewise, capitalisation of The Guardian is implicitly endorsed by the MoS when it repeatedly uses the full-form The New York Times, as well as the titles of other periodicals, in several different locations in running text. (NB-This is actually a matter of some disagreement among style guides; the APA prefers a capitalized "The" in running text, while the Chicago Manual of Style (15th ed.) recommends treating "the" as not a part of the title, and neither capitalising it nor italicising it.) Regardless, the capitalisation of titles of publications is in no way comparable to that of band names. It isn't so much a comparison of apples and oranges as it apples and giraffes.

As I have stressed before, every valid argument that has been made in this discussion needs to be presented in the poll. I have consistently advocated for including even those relevant arguments with which I disagree. This argument, however, is neither relevant nor valid. Including this in the final draft of the poll text is only going to cause confusion and mislead !voters into thinking that the rules for capitalising the definite article are (or somehow ought to be) the same across the board, regardless of context. The comparisons do not hold up to even a simple review of the facts and thus do not belong as part of the poll.

Having established that, I'd like to ask Hot Stop to voluntarily withdraw the aforementioned text from the draft, or to explain why my above assessment is wrong. I would also be interested in any input the mediators or other parties may have. Thanks. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no need for lengthy argument here; the case is clear. Band names are not names of literary works or operas, or songs or albums or TV shows or films. All of these are addressed differently in various manuals of style. For instance, the Chicago Manual of Style says that in running prose one would write "the Beatles" because it's a band, but one would write The Hobbit because it is a book. All non-band examples must be struck from the poll. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Evan and Binksternet. Any and all non-band name examples are entirely irrelevant here, and could potentially mislead and/or confuse !voters. Accordingly, they should be removed from the poll. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, books, newspapers etc. are not bands, which is all that this is about. Rothorpe (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Since 24 hours have passed without any objection, I have removed the material. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Restoring. Let the mediators decide. A title is a title. Hot Stop 03:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The English language disagrees with you, but why let that get in the way? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"A title is a title", as in, for example, The Beatles, an album by the Beatles. Rothorpe (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Do we want Wikipedia to resemble books and newspapers, which are written by writers, or band websites, which are written by fans? Rothorpe (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to side with Hot Stop here — it is worth considering the style we use for titles in other media when deciding on a style for band names. It's also a point that's likely to be brought up in discussion, so I suggest that it be included. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You are ignoring manuals of English style which universally treat band names differently than book names or film names, etc. For instance, the Chicago Manual of Style says books and films should be capitalized in running prose—The Hobbit—but group names and corporate names should not. The inclusion of non-band names is a mistake. Binksternet (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope no one minds my being candid and saying that this is without doubt in the list of top-ten most absurd things I've ever heard. Are we permitted to add rebuttals to specific points by the other side in our respective evidence sections? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Not if it's outside the scope, which is about one band name, and perhaps about all band names. It is not about books or films or other works. Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Wait; are you saying that one side can spout irrelevant nonsense but the other side can't debunk it? I'm certain I misunderstood you. Regardless, I've added it. I'm starting to think that list of Ukrainian prime ministers wasn't such a bad idea after all. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying I agree that we should base this style decision on the style we use for non-band names. However, it is an argument likely to be brought up in public discussion, and one which may seem reasonable to some voters. It is therefore in the interest of both sides to address or rebut the issue accordingly. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 07:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I accept your determination on the matter. Binksternet (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Me, too. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I submit. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Other band websites as evidence for upper-case

While I applaud Jburlinson's efforts to improve the evidence for upper-case, I question the relevance of other band's websites. Should I add a couple hundred more books that are not about the Beatles per se, but use a lower-case definite article when mentioning bands with one in their name? Honestly, I could get the list up to more than 300 if this is the case. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• For example: Riders on the Storm: My Life with Jim Morrison and the Doors By John Densmore, Inside Out: A Personal History of Pink Floyd By Nick Mason, Rolling With The Stones By Bill Wyman. I could list 100+ books just about these three bands alone. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Since we have yet to establish a consensus to the effect that the outcome of this mediation will be binding for definite articles in all or most band names, I have to agree. As I said before, I do think this mediation should determine standard usage site-wide, but right now that is not the case. And until it is the case, we need to keep arguments that do not relate to the band we're discussing out of it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

So another words, both you and Gabe support using Rage Against the Machine as proof for lowercase, but we can't use uppercase examples to support our side. Yeah, makes sense. Hot Stop 03:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

If the mediation is going to apply to other bands, then we need to talk about other bands. If it's only about the Beatles, then we need to talk only about the Beatles. Neither I nor Gabe are responsible for the ambiguity that currently exists as to the scope of this case. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Where did the 49 references to the official web sites for bands named "The _________" go? Was there a consensus to delete them? If so, where was that consensus reached? Did a mediator remove them? How come usage practices of various style manuals and publishing houses qualify as evidence, when the usage practices of actual bands themselves don't qualify? Is it really the intention for this poll and this mediation to be exclusive to The Beatles and only The Beatles? What would be the rationale for that? Suppose the outcome of the poll is overwhelmingly in favor of uppercase "The". Would that mean that we would change all articles to say "The Beatles" and leave the MoS as is for all other bands? It has been stated many times in this discussion space that the outcome of this mediation/poll may have consequences for articles on other bands with similar-type names. If those bands have chosen in their official web sites to use the uppercase definite article, why wouldn't that be relevant to this poll/mediation? Jburlinson (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It didn't go... anywhere? At least, not as far as I can tell. I still see it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

There was a formatting mistake. I fixed it, but you should make sure there all back. Hot Stop 04:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. It's back again. That was weird! At one point, it was gone completely. Then it appeared again buried deep in the middle of the discussion sections, now it's in is proper place again. I thought I was going crazy. Which I probably am, but that's a different issue altogether. Jburlinson (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Decisive outcome, redux

Putting a number on it (67%) as suggested in the background section, goes against the idea of consensus not equaling vote counting. I suggest it simply be changed to the parties to the mediation agree to abide by the result – that is, they will not initiate another discussion of the issue, although they may participate if another editor does so. Hot Stop (Edits) 13:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

While this sounds reasonable to me, we have the problem of making sure that all the parties (including those not actively participating) agree to it. While we could notify each one, I think it's probably unnecessary. As I mentioned recently on my talk page, consensus tends to be self-enforcing. If we have a decisive outcome, further arguing will likely be seen as disruptive. So, I think it might be okay to take out the binding clause altogether. Thoughts? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) @HotStop: I disagree here, but perhaps others will agree with you. I don't think anyone should be expected to uphold a near even !vote, for example, if it comes out 51-49, with several "I just like it better" rationales, then that would really be a stalemate, wouldn't it? In my mind, that's the reason we should set a "Decisive outcome" threshold at 2 to 1. Also, lets not pretend that overwhelming majorites hold no water here. This is what's done at CSD, AfD, RfA and FAC. If the !votes are too evenly split, no clear consensus can be declared. While I realise that Wikipedia is not a democracy, its also not an authoritarian dictatorship either, and !votes in practice are indeed counted. What I imagine is that short a "Decisive outcome" of 67%, NewYorkBrad will weigh the strength of the !voters rationales and still decide either way, assuming its not deadlocked. Its my understanding that most of us have agreed to abide by the mediation results, so that should cover any rogue parties that reject NYB and the mediators decision. Hot Stop, to clarify, are you suggesting that we should go with whatever numerical majority results as the winner, or that we should all agree to follow whatever NewYorkBrad decides, assuming Feezo and Strad uphold that decision? To clarify my position, while many of the parties involved have agreed to the abide by the mediators decision, I am not aware of any of the parties formally agreeing to abide by the poll results. This needs more discussion. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying we should follow whatever NYB/the mediators determine to be consensus, regardless of the percentage for/against Hot Stop (Edits) 19:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, then we actually agree in principle as I have no issue abiding by the decision NYB/the mediators make. I think the "Decisive outcome" threshold is largely symbolic, but should be retained IMO. As I said above however, I'm not aware of any of the involved parties formally agreeing to abide by the poll results, if anything there have been numerous hints to the contrary. Maybe we should start a list here for those who are willing to abide by the results. Any thoughts Feezo? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's possible we're placing too much emphasis on the "binding" question — editors who are more likely to disruptively ignore consensus are less likely to agree to abide by it. I'd like to avoid having a formal "list of editors who agree to be bound", since this might be interpreted as "the other editors are troublemakers". It's fine to state a personal intention to abide by the poll, but I don't think we should make it a requirement. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 09:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Could we ask? I'm wondering if, as part of the poll, we could ask the voters an additional question, such as: Please indicate whether or not you would agree to abide by the outcome of the poll by adding your name to either (a) or (b) below: (a) I would abide by the outcome of the poll and will edit Beatles articles according to the majority preference, or (b) I would not abide by the outcome of the poll if I do not agree with the majority preference. This information might assist mediators and other participants in deciding on the final outcome. Jburlinson (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Feezo here, and suggest that we should not try to impose any more authority then is appropriate for this mediation poll. Participation in this mediation is voluntary, so whether or not editors abide by the eventual results should also be voluntary. If the poll yields a clear consensus then hopefully the results will be self-enforcing and the community will decide what measures are appropriate for those who disregard said consensus. For this reason, I think we should remove any language in the poll suggesting anyone will be in anyway bound by the result, per Feezo's comment above. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

So let's drop the whole decisive outcome line then. Hot Stop (Edits) 23:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. FTR, I wasn't the one who originally added the bit. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Deadline

Could we please set a deadline for this poll to go live? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please, let's not have any requirements, just the poll. Rothorpe (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thirded. Hot Stop (Edits) 23:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Fourthed-ed. (Or whatever that word is.) Hope to see the back of this shortly. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we're about done with the poll, that it could go live fairly soon. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I've announced September 15 as the deadline, since we still have to write the public notifications. Once these are ready, we can go live as soon as all active parties agree. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 17:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The text below looks just fine to me. Do we know at this point just what venues are going to be used to publicize this. I'm sure everyone's getting sick of me saying this, but I think Watchlist notices are highly effective if we're looking for a broad range of input. I'm not exactly sure what established procedure is, but I know I've seen multiple RfCs publicized there (there was one regarding the article Muhammad a few months ago, for instance). Anyway, everything looks great. Good work, everyone! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned a few above at #Courtesy notifications. And while we're on it, someone more familiar with the history of this dispute should try to incorporate it into the background section of the poll. Hot Stop (Edits) 03:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I like Feezo's changes to the text. Rothorpe (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Is everyone on board with the poll text and the announcement text? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 10:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see more actual background (ie past discussions on the matter) incorporated into the background section. Hot Stop (Edits) 13:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything in particular that should be included? In general, the approach to the poll text has been to distill the arguments for both sides into sections that can stand on their own. We mention the outcome of the "compromise/truce" already, so I'm not sure what's missing. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me Feezo. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no objections at all. We could possibly include a link or two to previous discussions/arguments/food fights on the matter, but I'm not sure that's necessary. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Publication notice (draft)

please feel free to change the prose as you see fit

Please participate in an RfC on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence/in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time.

(For WP:VPP)

There is an open RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the band's name in running prose. This is a long-standing dispute that has implications for the manual of style, and the case mediators are requesting your help with determining current community consensus. Thank you for your time.

Link, please. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 15:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Where? It's not here. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's showing up as bold since this is the linked page. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 15:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If it can't be linked in this section, what section should I look in? Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Look at the wiki-text — the link is there, and will show as a link when rendered on any other page. Or am I misunderstanding you? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 15:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Feezo, how do you plan to "get the !vote out"? Are we going to use watchlist notices? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I say here, I don't think something like this really belongs in watchlist notices. I plan to post the notice on the talk pages of WP:BEATLES, WP:MOSTM, WP:WPMU, and also at WP:VPP. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 00:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Corpus

I've corrected some apparent statistical anomalies in the "corpus" table. If I've misunderstood something, please change it back. Also, is there a reason that "Use without adjacent article" (5) isn't part of "Total neutral contexts"? Actually, is there even a good reason for keeping any of the information above the "Lowercase article" and "Uppercase article" rows? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you could remove anything that does not seem useful for our poll. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I added a comparable table based on the BNC supporting uppercase usage relating to other bands with similar names. Jburlinson (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)