Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2017

Legion of Super-Heroes

I need to have a grammatical issue clarified because maybe I'm not understanding. On the Legion of Super-Heroes article, which I began editing today, whenever 'Legion' was part of a proper name, as in the title or a comic book name, I left it capitalized. When it was not part of a proper name, such as 'the Legion's origin and back story' and 'the Legion proved so popular', I changed it to 'legion'. I was just notified that my edit was reverted because "ALL of these are references to a proper name!". I see this as being similar to 'the Museum of Modern Art opens at 10" vs "the museum opens at 10". Is this wrong? Leschnei (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is where I got the idea that 'legion' or 'museum' shouldn't be capitalized unless they are used as part of a proper name. Leschnei (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing "legion" as a euphemism for "unit", "team", or "group" with "Legion of Super-Heroes", the organization's full name. "Legion" in the context of this article is not the same as the military term (i.e. Roman legion) but rather the shorthand version of the full name. Using "legion" rather than "Legion" is similar to rendering "X-Men" as "x-men" or Spider-Man as "spider-man"

Mtminchi08 (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to refer the original poster to MOS:INSTITUTIONS, but the OP had already found it. That guideline seems to indicate that "Legion" should be capitalized when it is a short version of the proper noun. I would capitalize it based on that guideline and experience with similar terms.

That said, I think "the museum opens at 10", an apparent exception to the guideline, would be acceptable to most readers. Style is sometimes a judgement call. The only certainty in this situation is that arguing about this style question on an article's talk page with passionate content creators will make your life less pleasant overall. I recommend leaving "Legion" capitalized and making the rest of the article's prose shine like a ruby. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mtminchi08 and I discussed it on my talk page after my first post here. I have no intention of arguing; just trying to get my facts (styles) straight, and I was confused by the examples in MOS. Thanks to all for the assistance. I'm always happy to learn something new. Leschnei (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Side question: If there's a comic book title of the same name, that would be italicized as Legion of Super-Heroes while when referring to the organization within the comic book universe it would be non-italicized. (Similarly: Spider-Man is the protagonist of the comic book Spider-Man [edit: now that I think about it, it's The Amazing Spider-Man, which brings me to my question].) What if the article's prose used just "Legion" to refer to such a comic book? Should it be italicized? Should the full name always be used (and italicized)? What if just "Legion" is used to refer to the work-of-art in a quote, what should you you do then? (My guess would be to substitute with the full name, italicized, and for the quote to do this within non-italic square brackets.) - Reidgreg (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would lean toward referring to the book as Legion if that is the common usage in reliable sources. (Unfortunately, I can't think of an example at this time.) It is the job of the copy editor to ensure that there is no confusion about what is being referred to. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it, Van Gogh's Vase with Fifteen Sunflowers is often shortened as Sunflowers. I've come across some books better-known by nicknames than official titles. OK, you've convinced me! Just watch for ambiguity. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 13 count

I realize that it's four hours past midnight, but checking both the March 2016 backlog and the January 2017 requests, I see that they're each at 11, meaning a total of 22 at this exact moment in time. However, one Request was finished after 00:00 and subsequently archived, so the total would be at least 23 for the February 13 count. You may have a way of checking more precisely on the March 2016 backlog, too. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do our best; I was babysitting our youngest grandchild and unable to do the daily update. In the great scheme of things, though, is it that important? All the best, Miniapolis 14:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, if you feel that you can provide an accurate number for a blitz/drive daily update, you are welcome to update it yourself. If you get something terribly wrong, it's no big deal; a coordinator will correct it for you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]