This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the UK singles chart article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Record Charts, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Record charts. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Record ChartsWikipedia:WikiProject Record ChartsTemplate:WikiProject Record ChartsRecord Charts articles
This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
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. Consensus to move. Arguments against the proposal are based neither on evidence nor policy; the closest these arguments come is assertions that ngrams is not sufficient evidence, but in the absence of competing evidence I cannot give this argument much weight.
In comparison, the arguments for the proposal are based on MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, with ngrams given as evidence.
Oppose: I don't know... Even with Google Books, how can you be sure all the sources inspected are legit? Likewise, there are plenty of British sources that aren't on Google Books, like Music Week, Record Mirror, Smash Hits, etc. Even so, proper grammar in these kinds of periodicals tend to be loosey-goosey at best, so we can't really give them much weight no matter how reliable they are. Meanwhile, there are more articles formatted like this, notably Canadian Singles Chart and Irish Singles Chart. Are those official names or just improper capitalizations? Will this kind of change go over well with the readers? The UK Singles Chart is the UK's official music chart, so how would demoting it to sentence case look? It seems to imply that there's more than one official chart in the UK. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is claiming that "all the sources inspected are legit". These are summary statistics of what was found in books and magazines, some of which may be flaky or may refer to different subjects. It's best to actually sample the books and see if any significant number of such problems are apparent, e.g. with searches such as this. I've looked, and haven't seen much that would influence the conclusion that this term is not consistently capitalized in independent reliable sources, which is what MOS:CAPS tells us to look to. Dicklyon (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked. The book hits that cap those are almost all from "PediaPress" or by "Wikipedians". Limiting to 20th century, I see almost all lowercase. So yes, we need to fix those, too. We can probably just do it after a consensus here, or we can do another RM if anyone objects. Dicklyon (talk) 06:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will wait for the further discussion but this is a doozy (are you sure you want to decapitalize the official and well-known music chart of England which has well over 1,000 views a day?). Just dropping by to point out that the pages need an RM alert at the top, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "to decapitalize the official and well-known music chart of England", no, that's not what we're suggesting; just want to decapitalize our descriptive article titles about it. Dicklyon (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Hotwiki that this is a drastic change. When a proper name is decapitalized it removes the respect and place-in-society that the proper name bestows upon a topic. I usually point to the Civil Rights Movement when this "minor style change" reasoning is raised (the 1954-1968 Civil Rights Movement was lowercased when it was caught up in decapping the earlier civil rights movement articles, which were loosely termed movements while the 1954-1968 Civil Rights Movement was a definable dated event initiated, organized, and directed by the same small group of people associated with a few organizations). Proper names earn their status by describing or achieving their unique roles or place in society and history. "Is UK Singles Chart a proper name and not a generic name?" should be the question here. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Randy, if "respect and place-in-society" should be part of WP's criteria for using capital letters, you should propose that at WT:MOS or some such place. It's currently specifically not part of what guidelines say to cap (see MOS:SIGNIFCAPS). Dicklyon (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IAR and common sense should apply in some cases. If a name or event is obviously a proper name then arguably it's a proper name, no matter what the n-grams tell us, which is where the Civil Rights Movement fits. That was an event on par with the Second World War and similar identifiable concentrated periods in terms of societal influence. I don't know if UK Singles Chart is a proper name or not, and that's all that counts. Noticed you've expanded this into one of the biggest RM's in memory. Do you have a bot attaching notices to all the pages or doing it by hand? Hopefully this expansion will get this a relisting, probably some time needed to sort this one out. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Randy, at how many of these discussions have you proposed WP:IAR? Do you just like to ignore rules? I do, too, sometimes, but for Wikipedia, that's not the way to a quality outcome. Dicklyon (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IAR is a policy, not a guideline or an essay, so using it as often as it takes to improve or maintain Wikipedia is an honorable goal and major tool of the site (please note that I'm not suggesting it for this discussion). It encompasses commonsense, which of course is different for each person and specific to each use, yet has its place here. Most if not almost all editors shy from the policy and both question and demean its purpose, which is a strange way to react to such a central pillar of the project. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the policy, which says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." But that's an important "if"; the burden is on you to show how ignoring widely accepted guidelines leads to an improvement. That's never evident in your quests to capitalize all kinds of things that sources don't mostly cap. Dicklyon (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"never evident"? The uppercase discussion at United States Capitol rotunda alone belies that assertion. "Rotunda" is uppercased by the officials of the capitol and officially by one-third of the U.S. government, but was not moved because of both the rules you take as doctrine: foolish consistency and official name. Why does Wikipedia totally discount official names when it comes to casing? I understand many instances, but certainly not others, and since that "rule" is oddly in-place then it is a rule that should be scrutinized each time it is used (and might apply to this discussion as 'Official Singles Chart' seems to be the official name but per rules we have to ignore it rather than use commonsense and replace 'UK Singles Chart' with 'Official Singles Chart' in all instances). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support all but Official Classical Singles Chart: It seems clear that "UK Singles Chart" is not the title of a publication. Instead, it is a description of a subject, so it should not be capitalized. The title of the publication is "Official Singles Chart" (or "Official Singles Chart Top 100"), and this is uncontroversially acknowledged in the first sentence of the article. The provided statistics bear this out, showing the phrase "UK Singles Chart" is not consistently capitalized in sources. I see no real reason for the current title to be capitalized like it is – it seems to just be capitalization to convey significance, which Wikipedia does not do. Neither of the two people who said they oppose the renaming seem to really dispute this. However, "Official Classical Singles Chart" doesn't belong in the list. It is the only one in the list that does not contain the phrase "UK Singles Chart". "Official Classical Singles Chart" is the title of the relevant publication (see here and here and here). — BarrelProof (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are multiple UK music charts that track singles (e.g. classical, dance, downloads, indie, R&B, rock & metal, vinyl), so, for the sake of clarity, I think it's important that the the name of the chart is specified in the articles' titles, which would therefore lend themselves to title case capitalisation. If the community wishes to move the articles to completely different names (such as Official Singles Chart), then that's another matter entirely. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: From MOS:CAPS: "In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized." This chart is referred to by multiple proper names, and whatever the community decides its most common proper name is (whether that's the UK Singles Chart, the Official Singles Chart or something else), the name should be in titles of these articles, and it therefore should be capitalised. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, whatever the community decides. But that decision is supposed to be based on the guidelines, which give us an operational way to decide whether something is a proper name. The lead at MOS:CAPS says only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems you are saying that the actual name of these pages (reminder, the new pages listed below still need page alerts about this RM) is Offical Singles Chart etc. Is this accurate and well sourced? More input from music editors would be helpful. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Randy, I have no objection if you want to alert all those other pages or make them part of the RM. I don't think the multi-RM template can handle that many, so hard to do so automatically. Dicklyon (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AtWP:RM it says there is "no technical limit" on the number of page in a multi-page RM. I think I remember there used to be a limit, but there doesn't seem to be one anymore. — BarrelProof (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember when it was 30, and when it got increased. I never heard it was unlimited. Anyway, the list is too complicated. But I will attempt to add the half dozen or so with "UK Singles Chart" that were missed, hoping there are no objections. We can address the others later if this proposal succeeds. Dicklyon (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I added 5, and the bot notified the pages. I'll add them in the list that got generated when the original template was expanded. And I'll put a note that they were added late. Dicklyon (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support; not consistently capitalized in sources, and these are not proper names ("official" or otherwise), just descriptive terms. Some specific publications like Official Classical Singles Chart have proper names, but those are not the titles of these articles, and their scope is broader. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As others have pointed out, there is no reason for it to be capitalized. It is not a proper name, just a descriptive one of the chart, and that capitalization could created confusion into thinking that it is a proper name. It should be in lowercase as proposed. aaronneallucas (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I don't believe ngrams, and the lack of any meaningful context, accurate represents the capitalization usage. "UK Singles Chart" appears to be a proper name and, as such, I think we should preserve the capitalization that reflects that. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There is absolutely no rationale presented by those in opposition that would suggest the conditions for capitalising per MOS:CAPS is met here. It has emphatically been shown that if there is any proper name in town, then it's Official Singles Chart but the title is not that, and there's no reason to suspect that's the WP:COMMONNAME either. And "I don't believe ngrams"... really? Why not? We've been using them with great success for years. That's a non-argument that should be soundly rejected. Overall, it is crystal clear that our guidelines mandate the proposed title. — Amakuru (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still oppose. UK Singles Chart is a proper name just like Billboard Hot 100. Also making a move would affect thousands of Wikipedia articles for songs, artists, singles, discographies, albums, etc. Hotwiki (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Hotwiki, who is a longtime music editor and would know the territory. The example of Billboard Hot 100 seems apt. As for the list below one word: tags. If a tag has not been placed on a page during the main discussion that page should go through another RM or just be left as is. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of you keep making these "is a proper name" assertions, but you have no evidence presented in support of the notion. We already know that Official Singles Chart might qualify as a proper name in this particular context as a publication title, but it is not the title (or the main part of the title) of these articles. So, no, Billboard magazine's "Hot 100" is not an apt example of anything like this; it is a proper-named and trademarked publication (or sub-publication, rather), not a general descriptive term for charts published over time by different entities, like "UK singles chart", etc. In theory, someone could split these articles up into separated sub-series of articles by actual publication/publisher, but I strongly suspect that consensus would be to re-merge them back into combined articles with WP:NDESC titles, as we have now, because breaking them up that way would not serve the interests or more than the tiniest fraction of readers, the vast majority of whom have no idea who was publishing what chart at what time. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 10:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all the proposed changes made by Dickylon below, this has just moved way outside my comfort zone. I still oppose, and I still think this won't be a peaceful series of moves. With the way things are, countless articles will have to be copyedited to accommodate the decapitalization changes—something of bot-level magnitude. This may even require an RfC. Sorry, but something that drastic I just can't endorse, no matter what the supporters say. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Continued and strengthened support. The further discussion has made it even more clear that these are not the actual titles of publications. Rather, they are descriptions of topics and are not consistently capped this way in sources. Caps would be fine if the articles used the actual publication's titles. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The oppose rationales that I'm seeing don't have a strong basis in capitalization guidelines. Thus, I continue to support. (t · c) buidhe18:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please clarify what you mean by "this former name"? I don't see any evidence that the "Official Singles Chart" was formerly named "UK Singles Chart", and I haven't noticed anyone else referring to this being a "former name". — BarrelProof (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to quote the lead of this article The UK Singles Chart (currently titled the Official Singles Chart
Oppose: This affects thousands of entries on hundreds of pages which are well established for years. If there was any confusion about the current capitalisation why hasn’t it arisen before? For a change of this scale to be made, I believe there has to be clear evidence that it improves the readability of the articles and this doesn’t. The argument that this is not a proper name is based on a misunderstanding of the historical evolution of The Charts from a period of competing charts (plural no cap) to one Official Chart. Whether or not you include the word Official is irrelevant to the fact that this is one specific named chart: The Charts (singular). We aren’t talking about charts produced by different bodies each week. It is necessary to understand the cultural significance of The Charts in the UK to appreciate how to represent them.
SupportSingles chart is a descriptive name. Per Collins dictionary, proper nouns are ... arbitrarily used to denote a particular person, place, or thing without regard to any descriptive meaning the word or phrase may have ... The phrase singles chart is not inherently a proper noun as some might argue. It appears to be capitalised for emphasis but we don't do that per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. While the official name Official Singles Chart might be capitalised as the title of a work, the evidence does not support this as the WP:COMMONNAME. Per the general provisions of MOS:CAPS (through WP:NCCAPS), evidence does not show that UK singles chart (etc) is consistently capped in sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Before OCC took over, the charts were titled 'UK Singles' and 'UK Albums'. The proposed change seems like a complete waste of time and effort. --Michig (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well luckily for you, it's not your time or effort that will be wasted, because someone else will handle the heavy lifting of moving these pages... As for what the charts were called back in the day, that's a bit irrelevant. It's what happens today that matter for WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:CAPS, and the evidence says that this title is not treated as a proper name. — Amakuru (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2024 (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.
It's pointed out above that we didn't get all the places where this might want fixing. I find these with "Singles Chart", and would invite comments on whether some of them should stay capitalized: Dicklyon (talk) 06:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I added just 5, with "UK Singles Chart", to this RM, with automatic notification by the bot. The rest can be worked on later. Still seeking input here about them. Dicklyon (talk) 10:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: given that there were four UK singles charts back in the 1950s and 60s, all considered equally valid, how would we differentiate that this is now considered THE official singles chart of the time, if the proper noun is removed? Richard3120 (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That was kind of what I was trying to say: capitalising does add information that this is The Singles Chart as opposed to a singles chart. Removing the capital reduces the information and is potentially misleading. Btljs (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As part of assessing the consensus of the RM, I'm splitting this into a separate section; it has received minimal discussion and any consensus from the RM would not apply to the additional titles listed here. BilledMammal (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Take My Breath Away (SuReal song). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 17#Take My Breath Away (SuReal song) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
