Talk:Sex (I'm a ...)

Proposed rename

I propose renaming this article, from "Sex (I'm A...)" to "Sex (I'm a ...)", with a lowercase "a", and a space after the "a". As the article explains, the lyrics of the song include lines like "I'm a virgin" and "I'm a geisha". Per MOS:TITLECAPS, for the title of a song, the word "a" should not be capitalized. And the three periods (standing in for an ellipsis) should be preceded by a space, because they fill the place of the things that the person singing the song says that they are, like a virgin or a geisha. I did a web search on this song and its title is most often written like the current article title, but that doesn't matter, it should be written according to Wikipedia style guidelines. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It's been more than three weeks, and no on has said anything about this. So, I'm proceeding with the rename. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to pop in to state that according to the Manual of Style's section on capitalizing titles of works that you have yourself posted, the present title is actually correct, while the proposed move would not be, because 'A' is the final word in the title. Cheers! Remsense留 06:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne2: Hello! I see that you've renamed the article. It's often better to have a discussion before moving an article, as I've done in this section. That said, I would encourage you to explain your reasoning here, and we can see if other editors add their opinions too. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Because that's how it's written on the single itself. We call the article about the Slade song Cum on Feel the Noize don't we? We don't correct spelling grammatical or punctuation errors when we're quoting tiles. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne2: Right, we don't correct spelling when we're naming articles about songs. But we do adjust the capitalization to conform to MOS:TITLECAPS, which says that the "a" should not be capitalized. Similarly, the article about the Kendrick Lamar song is called Humble (song), even though on the record itself it's in all caps -- HUMBLE -- and if you do a web search, most of the hits come up in all caps too. So, we should move this article back to Sex (I'm a ...). — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne2: Thanks for posting about this at Wikipedia:Help desk#What's the policy when a song title uses non-standard capitalization and punctuation?, to get feedback from more editors. In the same spirit, I've posted about it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles of works#Title of an article about a song. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe RFC is the way to resolve this. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne2: Maybe! Why don't we wait a few days, or a week, and see if we get more comments from the Help Desk or MOS/Titles posts? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, there's not much point in "advertising" the discussion to well-watchlisted places only to kill the discussion and open a new one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey everybody. I think there are actually three questions here. (1) Which should take precedence for capitalization -- the way a song title is written on the single itself, or the way it would be capitalized according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style? (2) If we follow the MOS, should the "A" be capitalized in this case? (3) Should there be a space before the three periods / ellipsis at the end? I'm rather sure that the article title should follow the MOS for capitalization, but less confident about the other two points. @Remsense: You said (above) that the "A" is the last word of the title and therefore should be capitalized per the MOS. That's a good point, but I'm thinking that wouldn't apply here because of the ellipsis at the end. "A" is in fact the last word, but logically the ellipsis stands in for another word, if that makes any sense. And about the space before the ellipsis, I think it should be there, again because the ellipsis is standing in for a word. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

In order: (1) Per MoS, not per the stylization on the cover. Otherwise MOS:TITLES and MOS:TM and WP:OFFICIALNAME and lots of other guidelines simply would not exist in the first place. Exceptions are rare, and pretty much only when the MoS-preferred version is unattested in independent sources. (2) No, for reasons I detail below. (3) Yes, per MOS:ELLIPSIS; this is truncation in the title of a sentence continuing with something after the article "a", not truncation of a word beginning with "A", like "Acorn" or "Asymptote".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the MOS rule to capitalize the last word does not apply, since the last word in this title is implied. Here's an article on this topic: Capitalizing Titles with Ellipses. Darkday (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

But that's not the MOS. I really don't understand the justification for this, because it implies a comparatively subjective interpretive context, the kind of which no other comparable rule in the MOS relies upon. Remsense留 17:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that the ellipsis is a stand-in for any specific word here. Several different words and phrases are used to complete the sentence during the song. Notoriously this includes "slut", but that doesn't mean the ellipsis is meant to stand in for this word. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, this is precisely what a style guide is for, so that the minutiae of individual cases don't cause interpretive hiccups. If this is a categorical exception to the guide as written, it should be written in the guide. If it's not, then it shouldn't override the guide, all else being equal. The MOS says "always", it is not reasonable to presume it means something else. Remsense留 19:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne2: I didn't say that the ellipsis stands in for a specific word. I said that it stands in for a word, by which I meant (and perhaps I could have been more clear about this) the word that varies in different lines of the lyrics, as you are saying. In other words, "a" is the last word of the title, but it's as if it was the second-to-last word. Though so far not everyone agrees, e.g. Remsense's post above. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

In your mind, does this notion extend to other titles that are clippings of full lines? I don't mean this as a rhetorical question, I'm just trying to understand the full scope of this. Remsense留 22:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Remsense: I would think so, at least if there's "something" there (typically an ellipsis). Did you have a case in mind? If the song title were "What the Hell is Tha..." indicating a mid-word truncation, capitalize Tha... as the last word. If the title were "Where is the ..." with a complete the and an ellipsis indicating other words, treat that the as lower-case mid-sentence usage. I guess someone might alternatively title it "Where is the –", since styles for how to indicate unfinished statements vary. If the song ended with a numeral or symbol, treat that as the last word: "Shooting for the 8" (not "Shooting for The 8"), "A Pain in the ❤️", "From Me to U", etc. Same with treating such things in intial position as the first words: "6 to Go", "U in the Back", etc. I can pretty easily encapsulate this idea in a footnote for MOS:TITLES.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

"But that's not the MOS". Our MoS is based on real-world style publications, not made up out of nowhere, so external sources on a subject that MoS actually completely fails to address are quite pertinent. Though one by itself doesn't just end the discussion, it shouldn't be hand-waved away either. You can't really thump an MoS rule that doesn't account for the case at hand.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course, but I'm more saying the MOS seems to 'disagree' with this style point, rather than 'fail to address' it, but I could see it as the opposite perspective. I would just like the clarity either way. Remsense留 23:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

In this case, the MoS line item that recommends that the title of a work (when given in title case) should have the first and last words in it (or in a subtitle thereof) capitalized regardless what they are is poorly applicable to this, because "Sex (I'm a ...)" is a truncated phrase after which other words are implied (that the ellipsis is not a stand in for a "specific" word, as MaxBrowne2 put it above, is irrelevant; it's a stand in for one or more words, at all). The "a" is thus mid-sentence usage, between "I'm" and "...". A capitalized "A" here would be rather nonsensical. As another example, if there were a song titled "This One Goes to 11", we would not capitalize the "to" in that as "the last word" in the title; the "11" counts as a "word" for the MoS purpose there, just as "..." does here. (Call this an WP:IAR if you like, though technically it is not one, per WP:P&G: "Guidelines are sets of best practices supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." This is a common-sense exception to make, especially since the intent of the imperfectly written MoS material was clearly not to capitalize "a" in this way), and making one is within policy not a pointed ignoring of policy.)

The MoS line-item should be clarified to say to capitalize the last word, unless it is followed by a non-word string (such as a number or an ellipsis) other than question marks or exclamation points (maybe also single periods/stops? or do we just remove those in the rare cases they appear?).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

If the argument is that ... counts as a word, then that's the logic I appreciate and can work with. Thank you! Remsense留 23:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Arguably the ellipsis indicates an incomplete sentence rather than substituting for a word. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Six of one, half-dozen of the other. It still resolves to "this a is a mid-sentence usage that would be weird as hell to capitalize".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I can imagine members of the band finding this discussion and having a huge laugh. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I really think that SMcCandlish has explained things very well. For the reasons he listed, we should rename the article from "Sex (I'm A...)" to "Sex (I'm a ...)". Or re-rename it, since the article did have that name for a while recently. So, I'm planning on proceeding soon. I would encourage other editors to post their opinions now. (Pinging those who have already participated here: @Remsense, MaxBrowne2, SMcCandlish, and Darkday:.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I would actually recommend taking this up at WT:MOSTITLES for clarification along the lines of what I suggested above. If you RM it now, what's likely to happen is "oppose per MOS:TITLES" because the language at MOS:TITLES doesn't account for this kind of case and needs to be fixed. Never underestimate the willingness of various editors to defy both WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and WP:COMMONSENSE, and insist on a bureaucratic and nonsensical reading of any WP:P&G line item that can be over-literally misapplied to give them what they want (which 9 times out of 10 actually is over-capitalizing something, so the contrarian effect in question is highly likely here).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Point taken, and I appreciate what you're saying. But, I was thinking I would just do the move myself. I'm pretty sure that'll work. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

If there is ambiguity in the current MOS wording, then this article could be a good test case. I think we should refer it to them, or to an RFC, so that we can establish a more definitive policy. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Would you be willing to post about this at WT:MOSTITLES, then? I think you would do a good job of explaining it. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but tomorrow or day after probably. Dead tired now after two days of regex geekery, and I have a big (offline) day tomorrow.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Over the past few months, I've been inoculating myself to the nature of MOS discussions and what does and doesn't matter. Every time I've been involved in a discussion with @SMcCandlish I've learned something valuable from it, so thank you to him, even if I've seemed adamant in the moment. Remsense留 15:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Hi. Are you still interested in posting about this at WT:MOSTITLES (and still thinking that that's the best forum)? I think you would explain it very well. Or if you prefer, I could take a shot at it. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 19:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll do it in a bit; mostly worked out proposed wording. Been busy with holiday stuff, and some intense regex nerdery.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mudwater, Remsense, MaxBrowne2, and Darkday: Please see "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles of works#MOS:TITLECAPS footnote to handle symbols substituting for words", which should address this and everything like it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Excellent. Thank you. Let's see how that goes over. If there's general agreement there, then after some time I will probably just move this article, rather than making it a Requested Move. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, it would help more over there, than here, to say you agree with it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

After the discussion on the MOS talk page, MOS:TITLECAPS has been updated to include this change. So, I'm going to go ahead and rename this article again. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, since it's been extensively discussed in two venues (as a general class at WT:MOSTITLES, not just this case in particular, and though the turnout was not enormous the agreement was unanimous). Give it a shot, and if someone wants to revert about it, we can WP:RM it, but a third discussion of the same thing without a reason to do it seems like a waste of community time and attention.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)