Talk:Dvbbs

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. After extended time for discussion, consensus narrowly favors the proposed move. This case is distinct from substitutions of numbers for letters or addition of characters outside those pronounced in the name; it is purely about capitalization. The proposed target is permissible as a style used by at least some reliable sources, and the mere change in capitalization does not yield a startling difference in presentation that would seem likely to confuse readers. bd2412 T 00:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

DVBBS → Dvbbs – Current name stylicised in caps, since name is not an established acronym the following letters after the first should be in lowercase. aNode (discuss) 15:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 03:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Comment @ANode:, do you have sources calling them Dvbbs? Because DVBBS#References consistently call them in all caps. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 19:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tbhotch: We can disregard what the sources say about the name caps, for this case MOS:CAPSACRS does not apply since DVBBS is not an acronym for something (let's say, LMFAO which is an acronym for Laughing My F ass off). Instead, see MOS:ALLCAPS which says that "Avoid writing with all caps (all capital letters), including small caps (all caps at a reduced size), when they have only a stylistic function. Reduce them to title case, sentence case, or normal case, as appropriate." DVBBS is purely stylicistic here. aNode (discuss) 10:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

That reply doesn't even attempt to answer my question. So oppose until evidence is presented, per WP:AT (a real policy) and WP:MOSTM: "Although titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names or use extremely uncommon names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names" and "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one", respectively. Otherwise, your proposal is WP:OR and Wikipedia has to avoid that. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 17:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

By the way, we cannot disregard what the sources say, per WP:V. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 17:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tbhotch: Yeah, perhaps for other cases the sources should always be looked up to as per WP:V, but this is a matter of stylisation. That's why you don't see a song (for example) titled in full lowercase written as so in Wikipedia, despite all sources saying it's so. (Eg., Billie Eilish songs, Lovely which is stylicised as lowercase, but written in caps as per WP:SONG MOS guidelines in her discography section). We have specific MOS guidelines as stated above that we need to follow. Sources will tell us what letters make up the artist's name, but the MOS guidelines will tell us whether we need to uppercase or lowercase it. In this case, DVBBS is not an acroymn, right? It doesn't stand for anything substantial, and it's already mentioned on the page that it's a fancy to pronounce (Dubbs). Thus, the lowercase. For a similar case, look at the KSHMR discussion. I previously supported something like this, before realising in detail what MOS guidelines to follow. aNode (discuss) 15:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

As for the answer to your question, as said by In ictu, you probably won't be able to find any sources writing their name in lowercase since media outlets follow stylisations, which unfortunately we don't. But of course, the caps stylisation will be mentioned in the article lead if this goes through. aNode (discuss) 15:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

"That's why you don't see a song (for example) titled in full lowercase written as so in Wikipedia". will.i.am is not a song, but is lowercased. In fact, Wikipedia respects stylizations under specific circunstances (including DVBBS), and there are hundreds of similar examples. Your attempt to move this page, and the subsecuent answers (with no single of them presenting sources, despite the fact that that was all I was asking about in the first place), reminds me to two misinterpretations of Wikipedia guidelines for stylizations: Sunn O))) (renamed to Sunn (band)) and Deadmau5 (moved to Deadmaus). Although WP:MOSTM indeed deals with cases like these ("Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced [or] are included purely for decoration" or "Avoid ALLCAPS if it is not an acronym", WP:COMMONSENSE fortunately trumped them. In both cases, (there are other similar cases, though) someone arrived to the respective talkpages saying "The title goes against [insert guideline], therefore it is incorrect". Never questioning if a guideline was enough to excuse such moves, we can find arguments like "For the borderline cases we have to hammer out an individual decision on how much artistic license can be taken. But this is too much. The title is absurd.", "The current title is clearly against the MOS:TM", "the MOSTM is clear on issues like this and there is nothing that I see to make this an exception", "Sunn O))) and Sunn 0))) will redirect to Sunn (band). Problem solved" , "While the band is most commonly known as Sunn O))), I believe that the arguments brought up here, such as MOSTM rules, are convincing and reasonable enough to be applied here in a fashion to rename the article Sunn (band)" (for Zimmerman's brands we have comments like) "It's not hard to find sources that render his name Deadmaus. And it's definitely pronounced "dead mouse", so the 5 in place of the s is an unprounounced character. So it should be Deadmaus, as per Naming conventions and MOS:TM"--BTW, it is hard to find them--, "MOS:TM Se7en", "While this may not be quite as bad as Sunn O))) it is still a stylistic choice because the 5 is being used as a replacement for the letter S", "The title does not need special characters like "5" and besides, it's what Deadmaus wants to brand himself, not his actual name", etc; comment that helped to move those articles.

The articles remained like that a few months, but fortunately this was fixed. The consensus to move those pages back read as "...The most convincing arguments are that "Deadmaus" isn't widely used outside of Wikipedia and that "Deadmau5" may not be a simple stylization issue (like replacing "S" with "$"). Even if it were, there's clear local consensus for this to be an exception to the typical practice, and "There is consensus to move the article back to Sunn O))), per WP:COMMONNAME, which is policy and overrides Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks ... Sunn O))) is how the band refers to itself, and multiple high-quality sources have followed suit." So, if I'm being persistent with what secondary sources call DVBBS is not because I'm being pedantic, it is because there are precedents to this RM that have had bad results for readers. If you aren't able "to find any sources writing their name in lowercase since media outlets follow stylicisations", then the title is not incorrect. And what the guy below also said was that the V is incorrect as well, because it is clearly stylizing the letter U in "Dub" (like Café Tacvba), so even right now your proposal goes against WP:MOSTM. Thankfully Sunn O))) and Deadmau5 are here to remind us there is nothing wrong when we follow WP:V and WP:COMMONAME, so let's follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters own advice: "editors should choose among styles already in common use (not invent new ones)". © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your reply to my statements. I'll give a more detailed reply later, but I found some sources that use Dvbbs in lowercase, although a large majority uses DVBBS. [1], [2], [3], [4]. Thus it's not totally true that this name is invented, others have done it for me already ^ aNode (discuss) 03:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tbhotch: Geez, someone should write a specific Wiki guideline to deal with matters like this, for musical artists. Okay, as for now, the sources I've provided do prove that some people use Dvbbs in lowercase, so it's not WP:OR. A majority of sources use DVBBS, which appears to follow WP:COMMONNAME and WP:COMMONSENSE like you're saying. But unlike the examples above, no visible sources write "Deadmau5" as "Deadmaus" and "will.i.am." as "William". Having some sources write Dvbbs should differ this case from the ones you stated, thus we apply stylisation guidelines and lowercase the name. aNode (discuss) 08:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

For the most part, I am in full agreement with the points you made. However, the examples of stylisations are very different. Deadmau5 and Sunn O))), (using numbers and symbols thus making it a different name, rather than the same name but with a different style); this is different to breaking gramatical rules with a simple case-stylisation, such as deadmau5. I don't want to go into all-lowercase after the mess at Talk:will.i.am. But I stand by WP:ALLCAPS and MOS:TMCAPS, and the simple principle of "non-acronyms must not be all caps". This, of course, presents issues for smaller examples, however it sets apart pure stylistic all-caps nonsense ("DVBBS") from a gramatically correct use of all-caps ("LMFAO") and as an encyclopedia we adhere to the language. Lazz_R 00:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lazz R:, If you had paid attention to what I say you would have read: "Your attempt to move this page [...] reminds me to two misinterpretations of Wikipedia guidelines for stylizations", because Sunn O))) and Deadmau5 (also add Tech N9ne, which I forgot about) are the clear examples of what happens when guidelines are enforced. But if you precise all caps titles that are not acronyms we have GZA, RZA, and probably SAT, whose acronym's status no longer applies. You can keep "stand[ing] by WP:ALLCAPS and MOS:TMCAPS", but titles are subjected to WP:AT, the relevant policy for titles. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Support pure stylism, "Dubbs" is the name of this duo, and while pop sources may pander to stylisms of this this sort, we have our own MOS here which is that we aid readers in distinguishing acronyms and non-acronyms. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Support per WP:ALLCAPS, MOS:TMCAPS and MOS:TMRULES. Another disruptive all-caps stylisation. Lazz_R 16:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose per the lucid arguments of Tbhotch. Most sources, even the NY Times [5], use all caps. Stylized or not, we should use whatever most sources use, per COMMONNAME, which trumps the style guide. It is that simple. WP is fundamentally about reflecting the real world, not distorting it according to our own preferences. --В²C ☎ 23:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

If WP:COMMONNAME adheres to the whole of Wikipedia, every stylisation in the world would be applied, just because "sources use them am I right!". I have already given some sources above which use Dvbbs in lowercase, proving it's not an alienated name. If your situation applied, would have been called KSHMR on Wiki, Jes would have been labelled JES, etc. One simple rule to follow, if the name in question is not an acroymn, we lowercase it. And what would DVBBS stand for in your opinion? aNode (discuss) 03:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Clearly it's not an acronym that stands for anything, nor does my argument depend on it being an acronym, so why are you asking? Why do you think WP:OTHERSTUFF is relevant here? Why do you think the undisputed fact that some sources use lowercase is relevant here? None of this addresses my point, the essence of WP:COMMONNAME: When the majority of reliable English sources use X to refer to a given topic, we should use X for the title of our article about that topic. That is the simple rule that applies to all titles. Just because some people unfortunately decided to infuse the style guide with guidance that contradicts longstanding policy and convention is no reason to follow it. And, by the way, this does not mean that "every stylization in the world applies"; only those that are used most commonly by reliable sources to refer to the topic in question. --В²C ☎ 15:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

WP:OTHERSTUFF to point out the guidelines stated there, which in their cases helped to move the page title successfully. Keep in mind that WP:COMMONNAME is not a wiki policy (quoting the words of SMcCandlish), while MOS tells us that the title should be lowercased if it's not an acronym. If you disagree, feel free to start a policy overhaul at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. The manual of style is key here. aNode (discuss) 16:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me? WP:COMMONNAME is a section of WP:AT, which most certainly is a policy page. Therefore COMMONNAME is policy, and policy trumps stupid style guide. --В²C ☎ 17:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Have you read WP:COMMONSTYLE yet? It states: " Wikipedia has a segment of title policy called "Use commonly recognizable names" (WP:COMMONNAME or WP:UCRN), and it is often mistaken for a style policy rather than a naming convention. It is often even mistaken for the overriding naming policy on Wikipedia, when (if one actually bothers to read it) it is just a default recommendation intended to steer us to choose the article title that is the most likely to match the five article title criteria (WP:CRITERIA)..." COMMONNAME is not a style policy. That's MOS:ALLCAPS. Also on the same page, it states: "It does not extend in any cases to: All-capitals for emphasis SONY, TIME magazine, The GAP", which is basically this case. aNode (discuss) 18:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Support: Per guidelines cited by Lazz_R and WP:TITLETM policy, together with independent sources identified by ANode (e.g., SF Weekly). —BarrelProof (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.