Talk:D.O.D. (DJ)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Electronic music

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

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

Requested move 4 September 2018[edit]

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.

Not moved. bd2412 T 01:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D.O.D. (DJ) → D.O.D (DJ) – Update name without a dot at the end as per iTunes, official website and Facebook sources. aNode (discuss) 05:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose tedious stylism. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – vanity punctuation styling with self-published and promotional sources aren't sufficient to overcome Wikipedia guidelines supporting standard English formatting. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some miscallenous sources I can list which shows the exact name are as follows: [1], [2], [3], and together with the self published sources. I see no reason to have the sylicisation correction opposed. It can also be removed altogether instead, maybe leaving just "DOD"? aNode (discuss) 12:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia guidelines say to avoid unusual stylings of names unless all (or at least nearly all) independent reliable sources follow them consistently. It's not a question of whether we can find some sources that match the self-published styling. It's not even a matter of following the majority of sources. If the sources are mixed, we use the styling that is more like what is used in ordinary English. This proposal is not using ordinary English punctuation. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to D.O.D - it's about time we just agreed to honour these stylisms where they appear as the majority usage in sources. Our MOS style should only apply to proper names if there's no clear preponderence of usage. It would be a far easier rule to follow than the current "only do it if sources do it and the person expressed a preference" custom, which requires pointless research. Additionally, the stylism D.O.D makes this unique compared to other D.O.D. entries, satisfying WP:SMALLDETAILS and WP:NATURALDIS. — Amakuru (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It sounds like you want to change the Wikipedia guidelines. The guidelines do not say to just use whatever styling is most popular in sources. This is probably not the proper place to propose changing the guidelines. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Which guideline are you talking about? I know of no rule that tells us not to use the style commonly found in sources, and WP:SMALLDETAILS (a policy page, no less) actively encourages it, with examples Airplane! and The Wörld Is Yours that differ from their regular versions purely in the fact that they have an unusual styling. — Amakuru (talk) 06:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  One is MOS:TMRULES: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official', as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one". This does not say "unless the non-standard styling is a little bit more popular". It says "as long as this is a style already in widespread use". IIRC, the wording used to be slightly different. (Note that "The advice in this page also applies to names and phrases used to identify individuals, movements, groups, ...") —BarrelProof (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  
  This isn't a trademark though. That part of the MOS is there to cater for things like macy*s, odd stylisms that aren't usually reproduced in sources or similar quirky things that companies try to push on us. This is just a way to write a proper name though, and The Wörld Is Yours is documented evidence, on a policy page, that your theory on this is incorrect. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  That page applies regardless of whether it's a formal trademark or not. Please see the part that I quoted that says "The advice in this page also applies to names and phrases used to identify individuals". "D.O.D" seems just as quirky as "macy*s" to me. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, but the difference is that a majority of reliable sources use D.O.D in normal text and commentary whereas they don't say macy*s. And what about The Wörld Is Yours? Isn't that an almost identical case to this one? — Amakuru (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  The case of The Wörld Is Yours seems quite different. That one is a matter of diacritics; this one is not. The guidelines for diacritics are much less prescriptive (see WP:DIACRITICS). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2018 (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.