Talk:Givers

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music 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.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Alternative music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. 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.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Louisiana Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Louisiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana (assessed as Low-importance).

Band name/article title

This article should rest at Givers, not at GIVERS. The latter is simply a stylization, and according to the naming convention (WP:NCM) this should be avoided. Furthermore, most retail and news sources give the band name as 'Givers', like iTunes, Amazon, and NPR. If anyone disagrees, feel free to discuss. —Akrabbim^talk 00:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am deeply uncomfortable that while we all agree to report accurately or paraphrase what sources say, we feel entitled to make decisions about and alter the way sources prefer the spelling and capitalization of their name in some cases (here) and not others (k.d. lang). It's arbitrary and control-freakish, pure and simple. Oh, and iTunes got it wrong, and Amazon gets it mixed, and NPR got it wrong, and TIME got it right, and Last.fm got it right. Here, I think the primary source, if consistent, should guide. --Lexein (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same argument for leaving k.d. lang uncapitalized cannot be made to this article. It is allowed in that case because of "regular and established use in reliable third-party sources" (from WP:MOSCAPS#Mixed or non-capitalization), specifically regarding the non-capitalization of proper names. An all-caps stylization is not the same thing, and even if it was, it is certainly not "regular and established" in this case. This standard is not arbitrary—it is intended to maintain consistency and professionalism throughout the encyclopedia. —Akrabbim^talk 18:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedists' aspirations aside, no individual controls their representation in media. Oh wait, they can, with a sufficiently powerful public relations firm, and legal representation, and money. You'll find irregular usage of k.d. lang in plenty of places; all you have to do is look. Pretentions of non-arbitrariness notwithstanding, it cannot be claimed that consistency or professionalism are served by disrespecting the primary source's preferred presentation of their name. If we respect sources, respect the primary source about their name. If we do not, admit it. --Lexein (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course some people get k.d. lang wrong, but pretty much all reputable, reliable, major third-party sources agree on the lowercase. This is not at all the case with Givers vs. GIVERS, where we have reputable, reliable, major third-party sources occasionally respecting stylization, and other times not (the AllMusic Guide is another example). We aren't respecting or disrespecting anybody's preferences by doing it this way, it is just a stylization, like KoЯn. Givers is simply an unstylized equivalent of GIVERS, you are speaking as if it is entirely incorrect. We don't respect primary sources over common usage as reflected by reliable, third-party sources. —Akrabbim^talk 18:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anything wrong with using the same format as Florence and the Machine? http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Florence_%2B_The_Machine "Florence and the Machine (stylised as Florence + the Machine)" -> "Givers (stylised as GIVERS)". Danke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.115.118 (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]