# Talk:Remember not, Lord, our offences

You recently renamed Remember not, Lord, our offences to Remember Not, Lord, Our Offences.  Sorry, but every catalogue of Purcell's works does not use such capitalisation, the source text does not, and in general, Anglican choral anthems do not follow this rule. Please review.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:NCCAPS in conjunction with MOS:CT which dictates the use of capitals when it comes to composition titles.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Please also see Category:Compositions by Henry Purcell, where all Purcell's works are capitalised according to WP:NCCAPS and our MoS.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the policies you cited, irregardless they are not capitalised in the catalogues of musicologists who do this shit for a living Policy can be wrong from time to time...wouldn't be the first time Wikipedia was. Screw what reliable sources prepared by experts do because MOS (a mere guideline) says to do it differently. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
If you regard the MoS as "a mere guideline", then take into account WP:TITLEFORMAT which is policy.  As far as "musicologists" and "experts" go, please see WP:Specialist style fallacy.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't regard MOS as a mere guideline...it advertises itself as a "guideline."  Your essay is just further proof that Wikipedia enjoys putting up signs saying "we're a bunch of happy 12-year olds...experts not welcome" I guess the works of musicologists (including the one cited in the very first line of the article), the title as printed on almost every score since it was composed, its listing in the catalogues and manuscript collections where it was included, the source text, and anything else that points to the original format for the title doesn't apply because MOS says "hey, capitalise" the title despite all else. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. Double down on wrong. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
English language usage and capitalisation conventions have changed a lot since 1679.  Using the original format is "wrong".  Do you think we should format Measure for Measure as "MEASVRE, For Meaſure", because that's how the First Folio has it?  --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
The only score I've seen with it capitalized is the one on IMSLP. I'm including a lot of 19th/20th/21st century scores. And Zimmermann's catalogue was done about 50 years ago. Open any BCP, look at the litany, the text isn't capitalised. MOS is wrong on this one.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 The Chicago Manual of Style, which is what our MOS is largely based on, has this to say: Compiling a bibliography raises questions of how much editing may be done to the title of a printed work in applying rules of style. Because capitalization, punctuation, and the use of italics on a title page are generally matters determined by the publisher rather than the author, scholars agree that these may be changed within limits, but that the author's spelling must not be altered.  — CMS-13, §16.31: "Titles" --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
And I've reverted your move - it didn't even fall in line with your own reasoning, as you had capitalised "Offences", which no source does.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Please could you also demonstrate a single policy or guideline which supports your view.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, "Offences" remained capitalised while bots fixed the double redirect problem after I requested it returned at WP:RM. I started the article lowercase. Historically usage of "offences" or "Offences" has been 50-50, so I went with the BCP initially, and used the lowercase when I create the article. Editorial discretion. But none capitalise "not" or "our". But again, the usage of experts, history, the composer, publishers cannot matter. MOS!! MOS!! MOS!! MOS!!. See what confusion you introduced.--ColonelHenry (talk)
I don't care who's right but both of you must stop move-warring.  A full discussion at WP:RM is needed. It was unwise of you, ColonelHenry, to get the page moved back on the basis that it was uncontroversial - it clearly was.  It was unwise of you, Robsinden, to move it back again instead of using the proper channels for discussing disputed moves.  BencherliteTalk 12:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Point taken Bencherlite, but the hybrid capitalisation it had been moved to did not serve anyone's interests.  I'd suggest Henry take this to a move discussion to seek consensus for an exception to our MoS.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Fuck both of you, for your dickishness. Double down on wrong. MOS inconsistent yet again. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA (recognizablity, precision, etc.) vs. MOS:CT. I thought it was the proper channel--RM has a header for "reverting undiscussed moves", that's where I filed my request since Robsinden did his move unilaterally and then gave a big smack of WP:IDHT intransigence. The encyclopaedia that anyone can edit...including formatting article names wrong just because some inconsistent MOS guidelines tell him he doesn't have to hear otherwise. WP:DICK indeed. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
This isn't a naming issue, but a style issue.  We can both throw WP:IDHT accusations around, but WP:TITLEFORMAT, WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CT are unequivocal.  WP:CIVIL is pretty unambiguous too.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
BTW: WP:MOS#Article titles, headings, and sections#Article titles says "Use "sentence case", not "title case"; that is, the initial letter of a title is capitalized (except in rare cases, such as eBay), but otherwise, capital letters are used only where they would be used in a normal sentence (Funding of UNESCO projects, not Funding of UNESCO Projects).", WP:TITLEFORMAT, WP:NCCAPS: "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper noun." Incipits in poems, and sacred anthems aren't capitalised like Robsinden insists upon because they aren't proper nouns. The example of To be, or not to be is more appropriate as an analogue (go ahead Rob, move that one if you prefer insisting on the incorrect way).  If policy is inconsistent, probably it's best to go with the usage in the real world, WP:UCN, which in this instance which had fewer capital letters. And the Chicago Manual advisory is not relevant since it's not an editor or publisher's system, Purcell named it the way I had originally started the article as, the source text (written in the 1540s) has it this way, and every edition published since, including Zimmermann's catalogue which came up about 250 years later. Established convention. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Sentence case would include the properly capitalised composition titles, as the guidelines WP:AT directs us to shows.  "To be, or not to be" in the context above is a phrase, not a composition title, but it is correctly capitalised as "To Be or Not to Be" in film, song or book titles.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
"Remember not, Lord, our Offences" is a phrase...look at the BCP where it's a part of a larger litany, the score, and its usage throughout the last 330 years and you'd see that. WP:UCN says it clear "it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article."  Screw the experts, screw consistent historical usage. You don't care, because petulantly you will fall back on your only reason MOS!! MOS!! MOS!! Most Anglican church anthems and sacred music do not abide by your precious incorrect MOS interpretation. But I don't care anymore (IDGAF). If you want to be incorrect, and insist upon it because your ego won't let you listen to decent reasons otherwise...HEY IT"S THE FRIGGIN' MOS. MOS!! MOS!! MOS!! You can have your damn win. I'm out. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
There's no dispute as far as WP:UCN goes, but you're confusing name with style.  We don't source style.  And, it's not a phrase, it's a "five-part choral anthem", and thus a composition.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Splitting hairs just so you can persist in WP:IDHT. There's no reasoning with you--ignore what the reliable sources and history says...your way is right because it's your way. Great job on the sophistry it serves your purpose...definitely improves the encyclopaedia (SARCASM) by doubling down on wrong. IDGAF. You win. Let the inaccuracies persist.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Maybe if you were WP:CIVIL, rather than shouting and accusing other editors of not listening, when clearly you're not listening yourself, you might find it easier to reason with people.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
You were about as accommodating as a hyena. Pot calling the kettle black. You win. Your uninformed understanding trumps the composer, publishers, experts and the reliable sources. Correctness will bend to the will of the MOS and an editor who refuses to hear otherwise. You win. I abandon this article because I ran into an editor who insists the incorrect way is the only way because MOS is infalliable holy writ.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)