Jump to content

Talk:K.d. lang: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,550,911 edits
m Signing comment by 64.223.111.148 - "→‎Libelous material: new section"
Line 193: Line 193:
== Libelous material ==
== Libelous material ==


The article asserts that kd lang is homosexual, which is an unfounded rumor. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/64.223.111.148|64.223.111.148]] ([[User talk:64.223.111.148|talk]]) 00:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
The article asserts that kd lang is homosexual, which is an unfounded rumor.

Revision as of 00:51, 10 November 2013

Capitalization and the MOS

WP:MOSCL states "For proper names and trademarks that are given in mixed or non-capitalization by their owners (such as k.d. lang, adidas and others), follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules." That seems to directly address whether to capitalize K.D.Lang's name throughout the article. Standard text formatting and capitalization rules are to capitalize proper names. It even goes on to say that "[t]he mixed or non-capitalized formatting should be mentioned in the article lead, or illustrated with a graphical logo." I fail to see any ambiguity here, and I can't understand why anyone would continue to revert standard capitalization back to all lowercase. Andyparkerson (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cause that portion of the MOS is stupid. Especially in cases like this where lang is NOT known anywhere under the capitalized version of K D Lang and when we make arbitrary exceptions for things like iPhone. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like the MOS, change it. That is where this argument needs to occur. Andyparkerson (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) already says "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." The most common name of k.d. lang is k.d. lang, not K.D. Lang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.12.52 (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME does not address matters of capitalization with a single word. But it does link to WP:MOSTM, which provides detailed guidelines for handling nonstandard capitalization (and by and large suggests to dismiss it). Our guidelines for music related articles (WP:MUSTARD) also link to that page, in the context of band and artist names. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOSTM is about trademarks and is therefore irrelevant to this discussion. K.d. lang is a person's name (not even a "stage name" as you keep pretending), not a trademark. —Angr 14:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
exactly how do you define "stage name" so that it does not include lang's lower case spacing adjusted monicer? -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A stage name is a type of pseudonym, a name that is significantly distinct from one's official, legal name, and taken for use as a performer. Using one's initials, or using a full name and an initial, or using only one given name when one has several, or using a nickname that is derived from one's given name, doesn't qualify as a pseudonym. Using any one of the last names one has legally borne in the course of one's life doesn't qualify as a pseudonym either. Whoopi Goldberg is a stage name for Caryn Elaine Johnson. George Burns is a stage name for Nathan Birnbaum. But A. A. Milne, C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, E. B. White, E. E. Cummings, and E. M. Forster are not pseudonyms for Alan Alexander Milne, Clive Staples Lewis, John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, Elwyn Brooks White, Edward Estlin Cummings, and Edgar Morgan Forster. And k.d. lang, with any capitalization and any spacing between the initials, is not a pseudonym for Kathryn Dawn Lang. It's just the version of her name that she uses professionally. —Angr 21:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrah! Her name isn't capitalized! Thus ends (I hope) one of wikipedia's more ludicrous disputes and its root, a flaw in the MOS. 81.132.83.199 (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the first paragraph makes a point of saying that there is no space between the initials and cites two references. One of which is her own site, which doesn't appear to say anything on the subject at all (although their typography suggests that her webmaster prefers to set it without a space), and the other is Who2.com, which clearly uses the space. I think it's fine to treat the space as a matter of style and leave it out, but to specifically state that it must be left out appears to be not correct.Vanhorn (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization discussion at the manual of style

For all interested parties, there is a discussion going on right now at the Manual of Style about whether or not to capitalize people's names against their wishes (like k.d. lang, for example). -- Irn (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...about whether or not to capitalize people's names against their wishes...." How very Wiki-ish. Is this an inbred "culture" or what?

WP:MOSCAPS

WP:MOSCAPS is quite clear that this article can and should be renamed: "Some individuals do not want their personal names capitalized. In such cases, Wikipedia articles may use lower case variants of personal names if they have regular and established use in reliable third-party sources." In addition to the singer's own web site (a primary source) we do have reliable third party references proving that k.d. lang is correct. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was Moved to k.d. lang. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


K.D. Lang → k.d. lang — As WP:MOSCAPS says, "Some individuals do not want their personal names capitalized. In such cases, Wikipedia articles may use lower case variants of personal names if they have regular and established use in reliable third-party sources." (emphasis mine) The all-lowercase spelling of "k.d. lang" is verified through multiple third-party sources in the article, indicating that the all-lowercase spelling is the most common use. Therefore, the article should be moved to match. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're citing the MOS guideline on trademarks, but this is a personal name, which is covered elsewhere in the MOS. -- Irn (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it appears from the logs and talk page archives that the page was originally at the all lowercase spelling, and there was consenus against moving it to the capitalised title in 2005. It was subjected to various move wars, including at least one cut and paste move in 2007-8 with the outcome of all discussions on the talk that the correct title is k.d. lang. It was seemingly then moved to the present title, against consensus, last year. Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
E. E. Cummings explicitly didn't self-identify in lowercase. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed vote to Weak support per nom citing MOSCAPS; see also Grammy website (search k.d. lang; results come in lowercase). It's weak because I still seem to recall some sort of caps consensus; also I personally just don't like the lowercase. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, that's why it's a support rather than oppose. If consensus has been lowercase (which it appears to have been, by looking at talk), then my consensus argument could obviously be disregarded without comment from me; my WP:IDON'TLIKEIT is just my opinion, and wasn't meant to influence move consensus. Either way, these can be disregarded because I have....
  • Changed vote to "Support" because though this is not, in my opinion, a 'personal name' as mentionned at MOSCAPS, there seems to be precedent with band names such as moe. and múm; this 'artist name' should be no different. Also as I mentionned previously, there is general usage (ie Grammys) of lowercase. Sorry for the confusing flip-flopping. -M.Nelson (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

k.d. lang, not K. d. lang

The result of the debate to move was to make the title of the article k.d. lang, not K.d. lang, which is what has actually happened. I think it needs to be moved again. Jenafalt (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page names cannot start with a lowercase letter. Hence the use of {{lowercase title}} to pretend that it does. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is fixed now, thanks. Jenafalt (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"vegetarian" vs. "vegan"?

(Sorry, seems my account has gone.)

In the article, I see k.d. lang described as vegetarian, while at the same time, she's listed in the list of vegans. Should this be changed here? --78.53.218.135 (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find evidence of one or the other make the change, but they aren't mutually exclusive and "vegetarian" is the safe option.78.86.61.94 (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poor photo

Surely there must be a better photo than that. It looks like Paul Whitehouse choking on a phlegm-ball, or a lemon. Melonbonce (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found one with the right license at flickr and uploaded it. Let's hope this one meets your standards. --CutOffTies (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move: k.d lang → K. D. Lang

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.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move, resolution of inconsistencies in various capitalization guidelines is unproductive on an RM by RM basis. Mike Cline (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


K.d. lang → K. D. Lang – We have guidelines that stipulate the use of conventional capitalization for musician names (MOS:MUSIC), for trademarks (WP:MOSTM), and in article titles (WP:CAPS). All three apply here. So case closed? Not so fast. There is some curious language in MOSCAPS that carves out an exception tailored to this article. As the guideline explains, “Some individuals do not want their personal names capitalized." This is terrible logic and the potential for mischief is obvious. (“If Lang can get an exception, why can’t Seven be Se7en?”) So I’m hoping that after we move the article we can cut this cute little pustule out of the guidelines. The subject’s name is given in the proposed form by CNN, Amazon, and the New York Times. The libraries are all cataloging her work under “K D Lang”, according to Worldcat. Kauffner (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guidelines are:

  • “Standard English text formatting and capitalization rules apply to the names of bands and individual artists.” (MOS:MUSIC)
The “standard rule" is as follows:
  • 8.4 Capitalization of personal names. Names and initials of persons, real or fictitious, are capitalized.” Chicago Manual of Style, p. 388. (P. D. James is given as an example.) CMOS provides this explanatory note on its Web site: “Occasionally a celebrity can get away with demanding special treatment, but since editors cannot know the personal preferences of every person, we prefer to follow a guideline and apply it consistently."[1]
  • “Choose among styles already in use...and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English” (WP:MOSTM)
  • Adhere “to conventions [for capitalization] widely used in the genre.” (WP:CAPS)
  • "Some individuals do not want their personal names capitalized. In such cases, Wikipedia articles may use lower case variants of personal names if they have regular and established use in reliable third-party sources (for example, k.d. lang)." (MOSCAPS) Kauffner (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

survey

So the The New York Times doesn't count? I was sure this nomination would get some kind of reaction. But it doesn't look anyone bothered to read it. Kauffner (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The singer has trademarked the name in the form "k. d. lang". So "k. d. lang" is indeed a trademark, and when used as one, attracting the rights that trademarks are intended to confer (in commercial or public life), it therefore comes under WP:MOSTM. But the story is complicated. That MOS page includes these provisions (beyond what has already been pointed out above):
  • Capitalize trademarks, as with proper names
  • Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official"
  • Trademarks rendered without any capitals are always capitalized
So if we are citing the form "k. d. lang" as it is used in commercial or public life, and if that is truly the relevant consideration, then clearly the title ought to be "K. D. Lang" ("Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if ...").
This argument is not to be dismissed lightly. At a recent RM, Bollinger Bands was kept capitalised ("Bands") at the insistence of Bollinger himself, on the basis that it happened to be recently trademarked (though it is a generically used technical term that the article did not even mention was trademarked). From this and some other recent cases, it seems that there is a job of clarification to do at WP:MOSTM.
NoeticaTea? 06:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – per MOS:TM, even though it's not perfect. Dicklyon (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: We should be using MOS to ensure articles are written in a suitably consistent style, not as an excuse to amend people's identities. It's her stage name - WP:V is a policy, MOS is a guideline. Ben MacDui 12:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Is there an actual problem here? No. It's widely known that the singer in question styles herself "k. d. lang"; what's the problem with using this style in Wikipedia? Equally, if the article had been titled "K. D. Lang", would that be an actual problem to be changed the other way? No. This discussion is just another example of a desire to impose unnecessary conformity. If all the time that editors spend arguing about fringe matters of style were spent on creating and correcting content, Wikipedia would be much better. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I answered these questions already in the nomination. Yes, it's creating a problem. The problem is not so much with the article title itself, but rather the fact there is a special loophole in the guidelines tailored to this article. This allows editors to argue that if Lang can have her lowercased initials, celeb X should be able to have his all caps/numeral/dollar sign whatever. There are three separate guidelines that stipulate standard capitalization for musician names in article titles. So there are plenty of instructions already. All that needs to be done is to remove the language that creates the loophole. Kauffner (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At any rate, the argument is one that several editors are currently deploying. Otherwise, I would never have heard of this singer or article. There are certainly plenty of sources to justify moving the subject's name to the proposed form. Kauffner (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the problem with drawing a line between respecting an artist's desire to have her personal name lowercased, and accommodating similar requests for uppercasing or special characters. That may not be where some people want the line drawn, but it's where the line has been for a long time. Powers T 15:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Is there an actual problem here?" Yes. Either a reader is familiar with K.D. Lang or is not. For readers familiar with her, there is little potential for confusion if her name is capitalized (i.e., there are no other K.D. Langs). However, for readers unfamiliar with her, a lowercase personal name in English is incongruous at best and confusing at worst. There is a reason Wikipedia has a style manual: to reduce confusion and reach as broad an audience as possible, not just readers of a certain age, background, or nationality (see the intro to WP:MOS as well as WP:BIAS). Cutesy typography, even if temporally and geographically appropriate, is not worthy of a general reference work with a worldwide purview. —  AjaxSmack  19:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, in particular the citation: "occasionally a celebrity can get away with demanding special treatment, but since editors cannot know the personal preferences of every person, we prefer to follow a guideline and apply it consistently".[2] Wikipedia has a style manual — let's use it. In addition, Wikipedia is a serious general reference that strives to present a wide scope of information to a worldwide audience (see also WP:BIAS) It is not a fansite or even a music encyclopedia (cf. Allmusic) so it should eschew nonstandard typography that serves to obscure the nature of the subject to a reader unfamiliar with it. —  AjaxSmack  18:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is less-than-encyclopedic to be using stylized forms of stage names such as “k.d. lang”, “Mi$ha” and EMINƎM. More encyclopedic titles for this particular entertainer are “Kathryn Dawn Lang” or “K.D. Lang”. Search-field entries such as “k.d. lang” can simply redirect. This isn’t about picking on Kathryn or her fans, but in properly addressing the concerns of fans and certain editors active on articles for other entertainers. These people, faced with push-back on having titles with stylized stage names, question what they perceive as a double standard. Greg L (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You meant Ke$ha, not Mi$ha]]. Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Popular music is an odd intersection of art and commerce, where "breaking the rules" is accepted practice. It is also accepted practice here at Wikipedia, per WP:IGNORE. We should be embracing complexity and reflecting it accurately, not working to over-simplify and whitewash over it. We need to leave this article name alone, strengthen the "loophole" that has got some of y'all's undershorts into uncomfortable positions, and then rename Kesha to Ke$ha just to prove the point. Otherwise, we'll be on the slippery slope toward renaming Madonna (entertainer) to Madonna Ciccone because "any reasonable person would expect her to have a last name." -- Foetusized (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the MOS is a guide intended to help present information consistently, it is not a purpose or goal in and of itself. The authors of the Chicago MOS, which our MOS aficionados appear to hold in high esteem, state that if a MOS interferes with the presentation of accurate information, the MOS should be disregarded. The 'problem' as described is also a red herring. Unusual capitalisation of the name of an individual or product is not confusing to the majority of the English-reading public, because the majority of sources outside Wikipedia don't worship their own style guides as badly as Wikipedia does. People are accustomed to seeing unusual capitalisation in names, and it's not Wikipedia's purpose to serve itself in the face of common usage. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:V both apply here, Wikipedia should not be altering the capitalisation (and thus the meaning) of names in this manner. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many times do I have to ask people to read the nomination? Next time, I'll try using hieroglyphics. There are authoritative sources that give the subject's name in the proposed form. It is certainly verifiable. Kauffner (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd to invoke COMMONNAME, implying that you think that k.d. lang and K. D. Lang are not the same name. I believe the rest of us see it as a styling question, since sources, including here trademark registration, make it clear that they are the same name. Dicklyon (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're not the same name. I've stated numerous times in the past, including directly to you, Dick, that capitalisation alters the meaning of words. Capitalisation is not, nor has it ever been, a purely stylistic concern. You're welcome to speak for yourself on what you see as a styling issue, naturally, and I think others can speak for themselves. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already opposed, but if anyone, including WP:RSes upon which the article is based, spells her name "K.D.Lang", they are wrong. The proper spelling is "k.d. lang" because that's how she spells it.

In English, individuals determine the correct spellings and pronunciations of their own names. If other sources want to ignore that and spell it wrong, that's their decision and their right. You have a right to be wrong, but you're still wrong. I don't want Wikipedia to spell her name wrong, and you'll never get consensus to change it to K.D. Lang because I'm not the only English speaker on Wikipedia that cannot be swayed from this conviction despite your rational, coherent logic that we should spell it "K.D. Lang". Thanks for opening this thread 'cuz it's been fun, I understand how you feel about what guidelines say and all, but this proposal has lost. Chrisrus (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisrus, this is just a self-admitted crusade on Kauffner's part to eliminate any sort of leeway in MOS:TM and the other manuals of style when it comes to people's stage names. Kauffner, Dicklyon, and Greg L are simply editors who think that the manual of style is a set of rules written in stone. I believe they are seeking to make a point after I attempted to get some clarity at WT:AT#Names of individuals over the apparent kerfluffle I started when I requested that Kesha be moved to "Ke$ha", with an RM at DJ OZMA, based on the fact that this page is at k.d. lang and we have pages like bell hooks, brian d foy, and will.i.am. I believe everyone in here should add their opinion to the discussion at WT:AT, because this very vocal minority of 3 editors should not be the ones to enforce a set of guidelines as unbending rules, such as Greg L's insistence that "[he] can only assume that a bat-shit-crazy, rabid following on [k.d. lang] established a local consensus in violation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS".—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was thinking about that; that's the most important thing, IMHO, if it's true: is there wording in the style manual that we could call for shortand "the k.d. lang exception"; to clarify that the correct spelling of someone's name is determined not by us but by the person in question? Let's fix that. Chrisrus (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling is not in question here, just styling. The trademark "k.d. lang" is registered to an individual named K. D. Lang according to the US PTO. But like most outfits, they probably have no idea how people want their names styled, and they probably store it without a case distinction and then reproduce it using standard rules for names. Or maybe they do store it with case, and that's the way she wrote it on her application. Don't really know. But it's her trademark and she's free to style it as she likes. Personally, I'd prefer that WP style it more normally, but I'm more willing to tolerate these lowercase names than all-caps names. Dicklyon (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it's a trademark. It's how they write their name. Why should we, as an encyclopedia, change this?—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because *facts* (*sound of audience gasp*) matter, as do proper encyclopedic practices. K.D. Lang doesn’t write her signature like our article currently has it. As you seem to earnestly desire (do as they actually write their name); I’m all for it. If don’t actually mean “how they write their name” and instead mean “write it as their publicist and agents demand it be formatted for commercial and promotional purposes,” then no, I disagree with you; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for her promoter. Greg L (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we needed to outdent that, but enough on that tangent, and that does not seem to be a recent photograph or autograph by the woman, and enough on that tangent. Whatever the fact of the matter is, reliable sources and the subject (whether herself or her publicists actions) refer to the subject as "k.d. lang" and not "K.D. Lang" or any other variation, regardless of it existing as a trademark or not.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting you: Whatever the fact of the matter is, well… I wouldn’t want to inconvenience you with “whatever the facts are” or anything so onerous. I’ve seen this sort of debate tactic before, where ample evidence is presented to disprove a point you raise, only to be countered with a *new and improved* reasoning du jour (also known as “catch me if you can”). Doesn’t impress. Greg L (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If everything from her or her camp uses the name "k.d. lang", why should we switch to a house style? This is the form accepted under the current capitalization policies and guidelines. Why should a bunch of MOS warriors such as yourself and Kauffner who refer to the situation on this page as "bat-shit crazy" or refer to the endeavour as "a war" suddenly decide to change the status quo? There was a decision made on this page ages ago to use lang's preferred form, or at least the form that is used to refer to her all over. All of the arguments towards moving this page are along the lines of "I don't like how this page is an exception to the norm" instead of allowing the exception to the norm for capitalization when it's already written in the manual of style to allow it and it's been that way since 2007. Clearly there's an allowed site-wide consensus for this title, the title of brian d foy, and the title of bell hooks, and not the "bat-shit-crazy, rabid following [that] established a local consensus" as you referred to it, Greg. And while we're on that topic, the Chicago Manual of Style allows this kind of stylization: Dinitia Smith. "Tough arbiter on the web has guidance for writers". The New York Times. But the Chicago Manual says it is not all right to capitalize the name of the writer bell hooks because she insists that it be lower case..—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every RM is a proposal to change the consensus and status quo. CMOS gives "bell hooks" as an example of an "unconventional spelling", i.e. an exception to the rules. They don't have a special rule about lowercasing names equivalent to ours. If this article was doing its "local consensus" thing, I would never know or care about it. The idea here is get the "k.d. lang exception" out of the guideline before someone tries to add a Ke$ha exception, P!nk exception, melody. exception, EMINƎM exception, Se7en exception, DJ OZMA exception, or other such nonsense. Kauffner (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But this "k.d. lang exception" has existed for 5 years on the English Wikipedia and exists within the CMOS as well. Clearly, the site-wide consensus on the English Wikipedia is that the "k.d. lang exception" is already in force, and allows for other pages like bell hooks, brian d foy, etc. It is already entrenched in our house style and this is just a knee jerk reaction to my WT:AT thread seeking to get the status quo on all stylizations to change. This is, as you put it, a "war on clownishly capitalized and punctuated celebrity names", after all.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no K. D. Lang exception in CMOS, no general exception for lower-cased names. Only bell hooks is mentioned as an exception to the rule. “Occasionally a celebrity can get away with demanding special treatment, but since editors cannot know the personal preferences of every person, we prefer to follow a guideline and apply it consistently."[3] Kauffner (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The simplicity of this is being bogged down with too much camouflage and spurious issues. The article states this fact: known by her stage name k.d. lang. Hmmm… “stage name,” huh? Well, EMINƎM also prefers that particular form for his stage name. Yet we don’t use that stylization here. Why not? To seize your reasoning right from your very fingertips, I could write If everything from his camp uses the name "EMINƎM", why should we switch to a house style? Marshall Bruce Mathers III (a.k.a. Eminem) might legitimately visit Wikipedia and wonder “Why do I suck?!?” The answer, of course, to why we ought not use vanity (“see me… I’m *special*”) stage styles is “Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not MTV, nor is it a black-light poster in the bedrooms of Beavis & Butthead. Moreover, even a rapper probably has fancier footwork than K.D. Lang; I went to one of her concerts and she clomps around on stage like Herman Munster. So I see can perceive zero justification for the double standard and see every reason for consistently using normal English conventions. Greg L (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see Eminem referring to himself with the backwards E anywhere other than in his logo and he doesn't go out of his way to include the backwards E in print material like this. And as I pointed out in my last post, the Chicago style guides allow all lower case names, meaning "k.d. lang" is no more special in these regards, as she is included amongst people such as bell hooks, brian d foy, will.i.am, apl.de.ap, etc.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see can perceive zero justification for any double standards and see every reason for consistently using normal English conventions. And that means that if the majority of English-langauge RSs don’t use Japanese diacritics, then Wikipedia ought not either. English is English and it is not within the proper purview of mere wikipedians (I’m not suggesting that’s you by any means) to exploit Wikipedia as a tool in hopes of effecting change in how the English language is actually practiced. You seem to think using a non-conventional stylized “stage name” (along with Ke$ha and the many other “I am *special*” entertainers who are full of themselves) is encyclopedic. Just pardon me all over the place and allow me to disagree. M’kay? As I wrote above, K.D. Lang doesn’t write her signature like our article currently has it. When I saw that your response to that was a non‑falsifiable …does not seem to be a recent photograph or autograph by the woman, I realized it was pointless further trying to debate anything with you. Goodbye and happy editing. Greg L (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to use that autographed photograph to argue that k.d. lang capitalizes her name when she signs it? Because I certainly don't see it. The 'l' looks lower-case to me, and the 'd' is certainly not capitalized. The 'k' is disputable, but the difference between a capital 'K' and a lower-case 'k' are pretty minimal, and when examining handwriting, I just don't see your argument. -- Irn (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[[4]], as all can see, she writes it “Kd Lang”, in which the first two letters are united, the last three are united, and it also it should be noted that she fudges the “n”. Look at it along with me: http://guaranteedautographs.com/laklisiaupop.html
The first letter is a K, uppercase. First, it’s very large compared to the rest of the signature. Second, while the point where she starts the second stroke of the K isn’t exactly as high as the first, it’s pretty darn close. And very close to the top points of the other top risers of the signature, those of the lowercase “d” and the “L”. The second stroke of a lowercase “k” doesn’t start so high.
Definitely an uppercase “K”, but it’s unusual in that the second stroke ends up instead of down, and this is clearly because she’s going to begin her “d” with the same stroke.
She finishes the letter “d” with a separate stroke. As anyone can see, this is a lowercase “d”. “Kd”, the second stroke of which is the last stroke of a K and the first stroke of a “d”. Vertical stroke, finishthe”k”startthe”d”, vertical stroke, Kd. No doubt at all.
Does she always sign her name this way?
Then it’s a uppercase “L”, but here you have to look closely and carefully to notice. But while the lowercase “l” is simply a vertical line, she clearly ends it with a horizontal bit. It’s small but noticeable. If you look very closely it actually turns up a bit at the very end. Lowecase “l”s don’t have those. Do you see it?
She does the last three letters in one stroke, fudging the letter “n” badly. She really didn’t write that letter clearly at all, so much so that without the context a person might not be able to read the word.
This signature obviously says “Kd Lang" http://guaranteedautographs.com/laklisiaupop.html. Chrisrus (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, she signs her name Kd Lang. Should we see a few more signatures before the final judgement? How about how she types her name? Is there a way to find more examples? Chrisrus (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support not using vanity decapitalisations, like we don't use vanity capitalisations. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—As far as I'm aware, our guidelines permit the current form. However, there is a philosophy that to change the guidelines one ought to start at article talk pages in discussions like this and then change the guidelines to reflect what is happening on the articles themselves—I'd rather it was the other way around, but somewhere the logjam has to break. So I'll say here that I think style ought to be consistent across all of Wikipedia, and only things like the name itself and spelling should be determined by reliable sources. So we should use capitalization conventions on people's names, even if the people themselves and some RS don't. K. D. Lang is the result using that method, as far as I can tell. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There are good reasons for not allowing vanity capitalisations, and these same reasons apply to decapitalisations. The guidelines should be changed if necessary to indicate this. Andrewa (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But we've allowed them for 5 years. Why is it only when it is suggested that all caps should be allowed that there's this kneejerk reaction to eliminate any stylizations?—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You give yourself too much credit :). I think some have been opposed to this all along. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 09:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It started a few of days after I raised the issue. It's hard not to see the correlation.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:07, 14 January 2012 (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.

Requested move (Feb. 2012)

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.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K.d. lang → K.D. Lang – per MOS:TM --180.183.136.102 (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2012 (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.

New style guide discussion.

As a lot of other related edits have also been done, hold-off reverting until the concise points raised in the style guide are addressed, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Caps_.22Items_that_require_initial_lower_case.22_.28partially.29_scrap_or_edit.3F --Jimthing (talk) 07:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Libelous material

The article asserts that kd lang is homosexual, which is an unfounded rumor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.111.148 (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:K.d._lang&oldid=580975342"