Talk:The B-52s

message: I'm a staunch believer in the plural of something not using an apostrophe. The band's official web site now has the (grammatically correct!) version without an apostrophe and this is used by the band across their artwork on newer releases, a change which seems to have been made when Funplex was released.
What's the precedent here? Just because Billboard etc. use the old, original incarnation doesn't mean they're correct. The band obviously used the apostrophised version for their earliest albums and continued this through to the more recent 'correction' - whether or not this was their choice or a designer's mistake, never corrected, is another question entirely.
So, do bands on Wikipedia always keep the original incarnation of their name or does this kind of thing go to a vote to decide whether the article title gets updated to match? By rights as the band now use "B-52s", I feel the article title should be updated to reflect this and the redirect can be implemented. Otherwise, the title's technically incorrect. Christopher (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wholeheartedly and I'm about to make the move myself. Vranak (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Currently awaiting a decision for the B-52s redirect to be deleted so this can move into place. I do not agree with the rationale presented earlier that because they were the B-52's for most of their career that they should forever be known that way. They realized the illiteracy and hamfistedness of their mistake and corrected it. Good on them, now let's do the same. Vranak (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Retracted the speedy delete request since this is apparently not uncontroversial. Will wait for some responses to roll in before taking further action. Vranak (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, isn't the plural of the numeral 2, expressed as 2's ? No? The plural of the letter B is B's , right? Whether or not they had it grammatically correct, I think the most searches will be for the original historical syntax. If next week U2 changes their name to U-2, would we really want to change the wiki page? When did they peak? When did they sell the majority of their albums and touch the most people and when were they most culturally relevant and impactive? Richard 50.47.246.194 (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not right away, but eventually I think we'd need to respect the band's preference. You know, give them enough time to rethink their decision and then alter the historical record. Vranak (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

text:  Another point is that "The B-52's" is an illiterate form, while "U2" is not. Vranak (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Yeah, well, does it ever occur to anyone that "prominence" is often shaped by Wikipedia itself? There at least needs to be a paragraph explaining the incorrect usage and its history. Joey.J (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "B-52's" vs. "B-52s" revisited 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The B-52's. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071002173159/http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/12648464/site/newsweek/page/14/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12648464/site/newsweek/page/14/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The B-52's. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100724033727/http://www.youtube.com//watch?v=jWByrePQgsA to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWByrePQgsA
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080611135306/http://www.theb52s.com:80/funplexoverload.htm to http://www.theb52s.com/funplexoverload.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The B-52's. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140916141618/http://www.billboard.com:80/charts/1989-11-18/hot-100 to http://www.billboard.com/charts/1989-11-18/hot-100
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141019093843/http://www.billboard.com:80/charts/1990-03-10/hot-100 to http://www.billboard.com/charts/1990-03-10/hot-100
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080611135026/http://www.theb52s.com:80/news.html to http://www.theb52s.com/news.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on The B-52's. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.http://archive.is/X6WW to http://www.btinternet.com/~roc.lobsta/mesobio.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The B-52's. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5aWxoHiRP?url=http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS to https://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved.  (non-admin closure)  Iffy★Chat -- 13:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The B-52's →  – Name is grammatically incorrect and the band themselves do not use the apostrophe on their own website (https://www.theb52s.com/) Neilinabbey (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: It seems very clear that the band primarily called themselves "The B-52's" (with an apostrophe) up until 2008, and most sources during that period referred to them that way. It seems rather anachronistic for the article to refer to them without the apostrophe for the period before 2008, and their period of greatest notability was 1978–1985, i.e. during that period of time. Regardless of whether the apostrophe is grammatically "correct" or not, it was being used. Discogs and IMDb continue to include the apostrophe, as do the title of their best-selling album and their anthology. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct about the historical presentation of the band's name, but this move (and my alternative below) reflect current usage. This should NOT be taken as a blanket change - titles of albums/media (and sources) should reflect how they are actually presented, and the article should be written to explain the subtle changes to the bands name over time. Discogs and IMDb are user-generated, so aren't good sources - they more likely than not derive their usage from Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 19:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't imagine that Discogs and IMDb are deriving usage from Wikipedia, when the band's popularity long predated Wikipedia, and there are a huge amount of RSs using it. CAVincent (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Yes, fair enough, that wasn't what I intended.Neilinabbey (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Support - Looks like a quiet and very minor name change for the band.  Killuminator (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

text: When discussing the period before 2008, removing the apostrophe seems a bit anachronistic, especially when explicitly talking about the name of the band. Clearly, the name of the band during that period included the apostrophe. Removing it also creates a strange mismatch between the name of the band and the title of their eponymous album. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it was a style fix, not a rename, but I'll leave it to you.  Dicklyon (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 27 July 2023 

message: On a different Wikipedia page about Mesopotamia it says that this album was released in 1982, but is not listed in discography. 66.8.137.249 (talk) 04:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Mesopotamia album not listed?