Jump to content

Talk:Artms

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yaksar (talk | contribs) at 21:14, 11 August 2024 (→Requested move 25 July 2024: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requested move 25 July 2024

Artms → ARTMS – Per MOS:TMRULES, When a name is almost never written except in a particular stylized form, use that form on Wikipedia. As well, under MOS:BIOEXCEPT and MOS:IDENTITY, living subjects of articles are entitled to exceptional stylization if groups clearly and consistently use an exceptional style, and an overwhelming majority of sources use the same exceptional style. When read in the context of WP:BLP, Wikipedia is probably necessarily compelled to use the exceptional style in such situations.

A Google News search [1] does not yield any results which do not stylize the group as ARTMS. Included in the articles which populate in the search results for me are NME, allkpop, Billboard, Hindustan Times, Korea JoongAng Daily, ABS-CBN News, Pop Matters. Outside of Google News, sites like Sputnik Music which reviewed their debut album earlier this year all took care to stylize the group's name as ARTMS. The Korean language edition of Wikipedia titles the respective article as ARTMS, as does the Japanese language edition. While I invite editors to debate the reliability of these sources or discuss points of difference in policy (so as to set a robust precedent), I also invite them to find any reliable sources which do not use the exceptional stylization.

Officially, their primary website could be argued as ambiguous since we only have the all caps logo to go off of, but their official fansite consistently stylizes the name of the group as ARTMS. Their social media is consistent with the ARTMS stylization on Youtube, TikTok, Instagram, X, and their official Discord server. Marketplaces including Barnes & Noble, Amazon, Apple Music, and streaming services such as Spotify all observe the ARTMS stylization. The only exception I was successful in finding was Tidal, but it's not clear to me if this is because there is another musical act by the same name but opposite stylization (it doesn't appear to be WP:NOTABLE or in possible contention as the WP:PTOPIC in the future, but this could help disambiguate down the line). Wikipedia is not beholden to fans on SNS or fan wikis, but they can help give some indication of the WP:COMMONNAME; users on reddit and X appear to overwhelmingly observe the ARTMS stylization, as do users on any number of fan wikis I found; [2], [3], [4]. 122141510 (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Amending the !vote to strong support upon further review of sources. After reviewing the newer oppose arguments, they appear to argue that we should ignore and override the explicit directions in the manual of style to reflect universal usage in English language sources. Arguing that the manual of style should be overridden, and we should instead use an invented style unused in reliable English language sources, would require an incredibly compelling case -- no such compelling argument grounded in Wikipedia policy has been provided.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Hey folks, that comment was from Dicklyon! I think the RM can be snow closed at this point. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per MOS:CAPSACRS and WP:COMMONNAME collectively NOT as per nom. Not interested to discuss further on "NOT as per nom" hence don't ping me. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME since sources universally use ARTMS and almost never use Artms.--win8x (talking | spying) 01:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per stated policies and arguments above. —ZebeFirst (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per WP:CONSISTENT policy (i.e., consistency with all other such cases), and for all the same reasons as at Talk:Ive (group)#Requested move 30 July 2024, in short: per MOS:TM, MOS:CAPS (especially MOS:ALLCAPS, and MOS:ABBR. This is not an acronym/initialism, it's just the typoical over-capitalization of a trademark for marketing attention, and the entire reason we have MOS:TM is "don't do that". This is an intentional misspelling (sensational spelling trademark) of "Artemis", and is exactly like "Grindr", "Krispy Kreme", "Scribd", "Reddit", "Flickr", "Froot Loops", "Mortal Kombat", etc., etc. Some of these are or have been also marketed with SCREAMING ALL-CAPS, but we do not do that here. This "ARTMS" is all-capped primarily in non-independent sources and in entertainment-journalism sources that arguably do not qualify as independent either because their entire survival is dependent on advertising revenue from entertainment-industry companies who are insistent about their promotional stylizations. Furthermore, the "almost never written except in a particular stylized form" standard applies when there actually exists a substantial body of native-English-language independent source material and it is mutually consistent on the point. But this act completely lacks any such body of coverage; articles about them are almost entirely confined to Korean and other Asian media, with very rare mention (that qualifies as reliable, independent, secondary sources) in other and native-English entertainment-news sites (e.g. NME), the house style of which is explicitly to mimic trademarks to the extent possible, the opposite of Wikipedia house style. Worse for this proposal, even some of the Korean media do not do this, including Korea JoongAng Daily which uses the same spelling we do. Even if this group's home-country media are not consistent in favoring their marketing-caps then we do not have a case to use it here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Korea JoongAng Daily does use the stylized form, contra to the assertion here. Refer to my original post, the source was mentioned and an article demonstrating their use of it in both title and body of article was linked. 122141510 (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guidelines cited here specifically require titles to reflect usage in reliable English sources and note that stylizations unused in these sources are improper. While there would be a debate if, perhaps, some English language sources that we deem more independent and proper used the current title (in which case we may choose to defer to a more "standard" stylization, that does not appear to be a case. If the argument is that the English language sources are not suitable for usage in general (and we need to reconsider the subject's notability entirely), that is a different argument, but not one being made here. But to do as argued above would be an explicit and direct violation of the guidelines, without any policy-based reasons to do so. (Furthermore, while it has already been noted that the !vote here is incorrect about usage in Korean sources, even if they were accurate we would defer to usage in English language sources. However, given that point is inaccurate, this part is moot).--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, this argument cites a number of additional examples that are supposedly equivalent (Mortal Kombat, Reddit, etc). However, with each of these cases the majority of coverage uses the current title, not a capitalized version -- these apples to oranges comparisons therefore provide no helpful guidance on how to approach titles in which usage across English language sourcing is universal, for which the manual of style requires us to avoid invented styles and make sure our capitalization reflects the sourcing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I tend to agree with SMcCandlish for the same reasons. Just because the Korean marketing tends to ignore English conventions doesn't mean Wikipedia should also ignore them. This is largely MOS:TMRULES and consistent in not allowing stylizations like SHINee or BIGBANG to override encyclopedic entries. Evaders99 (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For emphasis: per MOS:TMRULES, When a name is almost never written except in a particular stylized form, use that form on Wikipedia. You cannot possibly cite the MOS as reason to oppose when the MOS gives reason to accept. English journalism has accepted ARTMS – or did Billboard, NME, Sputnik Music, Hindustan Times, et al. secretly get bought out by Korean entities for the express purpose of reinforcing the fact that the name of this group is almost never written, except in a particular stylized form? It is bizarre to cite policies without reading them. 122141510 (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be one thing if Korean sources used a different style than the English ones -- in that case I would agree with you that we should be basing our decisions off usage in English language sources. However, in this case, with English language sources also universally using the proposed title, the Manual of Style is crystal clear on what is needed -- and in this case usage in other languages only further emphasizes this.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would be true if it was swamping out a different usage in other reliable sources -- in that case you would be correct that commercial decisions do not take priority over usage in independent English language coverage. However, in this case, usage is universal across independent English language sources as well -- therefore, we need to defer to Wikipedia's guidelines and the manual of style.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The oppose argument, appears to me, to be mostly predicated on misreading the same MOS as being cited for reason to oppose. The argument also does not acknowledge MOS:IDENTITY whatsoever. For emphasis, the oppose arguments have not spoken to either;
  1. Per MOS:TMRULES, When a name is almost never written except in a particular stylized form, use that form on Wikipedia.
  2. Per MOS:IDENTITY, When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources. If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses.
Characterizing the request as 'either Wikipedia style or mimicking trademarks to keep advertisers happy' is incorrect. Rather: it is either Wikipedia style, or, apparently misreading Wikipedia style as basis to overcorrect for fear of being mistaken as potentially satiating an advertiser. There is nothing in MOS that says to ignore WP:COMMONNAME as a primary concern for how to title an article. I assert that valid oppose arguments here would primarily be predicated either on [1] clarifying in this situation whether there is enough discrepancy for almost never of MOS:TMRULES to be in doubt, and if so, whether [2] if such a threshold is met, is MOS:IDENTITY an overriding concern for articles under BLP anyways? WP:CONSISTENT is not immediately relevant – TMRULES has an example such that it is Deadmau5 and not Deadmaus, but it is Kesha but not Ke$sha. The discrepancy between those two is with respect to how consistent additional sources have been in observing the preferred stylization. Oppose argument has not spoken to any of these concerns. 122141510 (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For MOS:TMRULES, the example that is the most relevant to this MR is Kiss (band), also generally in all caps but titled in sentence case. The arguments from a move discussion 14 years ago are very similar as to the ones listed here [5], and I stand by the point that all caps implies an acronym where there isn't one.
The point you raise about being "never written except in a particular stylized form", for me applies to more distinct styles than simply all caps, where avoiding that distinct style causes more confusion than including it, like Deadmau5 or Kep1er. Lets say Kep1er instead was Kepler (group) (stylized as Kep1er) - there would be an opening for confusion as someone could think that article referred to another group, because the group they are looking for is styled with a '1' in it. I don't see this confusion happening with the current stylization of Artms. I don't see any confusion arising from someone expecting all caps but instead seeing it sentence case, as that is how it is with the rest of non-acronym band names on Wikipedia. Orangesclub (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Kiss conversation is from 2014, and primarily predicated around specific portions of guidelines, one of which doesn't appear to be present anymore. I read the issues it brings up as relevant to today as such;
  • Do not replicate stylized typography in logos and album art the same way we might see the STAR WARS logo on movie posters, merchandise, and etc., but it doesn't comprise the common name. Nobody refers to it as STAR WARS in regular conversation, sources don't talk about STAR WARS, etc.
  • Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment, but don't avoid it just because they do. MOS is a guideline, COMMONNAME is a policy. Editors should attempt to follow MOS, editors must follow policy.
122141510 (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed -- as noted above, the debate over KISS was around what to do when a band uses a particular version of a title (in "official" or primary source contexts), but usage differs when looking across independent coverage. This is not the question in this case, which is instead about what to do when both primary and independent sourcing is unanimous on usage. For that scenario, the manual of style is clear and unambiguous.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Nominator's links make a very compelling case. Oppose argument simply does not seem to be accurate that the "true" name is Artms and it's some insidious "promotional" thing to capitalize it. Where is this coming from? Nowhere, as best I can tell. It appears that their name genuinely is in all-capitals and the media is simply reflecting that as accurately their name. Per reply, it does not appear to be accurate that there's any concentration of sources that use a lowercase form in sentence case a la "Kiss". Even if one or two examples could be found, they are clearly vastly outweighed by all the sources. SnowFire (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those exact same guidelines (including in the very paragraph excerpted above) state directly that the "standard" capitalization style is preferred so long as that is reflected in reliable sources, and that otherwise we need to reflect usage in sources rather than use an unused style. This is not a borderlimne case -- is there a reason we should ignore the guidelines you cite and instead use a title that is unused across all sources? Or, alternative, is there noteworthy usage of the current title in any reliable sources that may have been missed? Otherwise, the guidelines and manual of style are clear that we should not be using a capitalization format that is unused outside of Wikipedia. --Yaksar (let's chat) 21:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Artms&oldid=1239836622"