text:
Talk:K.d. lang/Archive 1

Budist Activism
Recently (April 10th 2008) a radio interview was played on ABC Local Radio (Australia) where her views on Tibbet and the Plympic tourch were recoded on the P.M. program. If the Australian national broadcaster finds this issue important enough, maybe it should be recorded on here?Mightymouseman (talk) 08:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
The reasons for move copied from the entry on the WP:RM page

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~

 * Support - Proper English spelling takes precedence over stylistic interpretation. DarrenBaker 15:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Wikipedia has precedent for using unconventional stage names as article titles (see Discussion below); it is harmless. Wasted Time R 16:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support This really should be consistent. Gryffindor  17:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - While the general style is to have product names begin with a capital letter, the iPod is referred to with (generally thought) incorrect capitalization. Only a software limitation keeps the page itself from beginning with a lowercase letter.  I see no reason why we shouldn't apply similar thinking to this page.   Ral  315   WS  08:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Wasted Time R. Rd232 talk 12:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose k.d.lang is clear usage. Septentrionalis 23:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. That's her actual stage name. -Sean Curtin 05:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. She may capitalize her stage name as she wishes, but as with corporations and such I believe we should use standard English rules. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's her name to capitalize or not as she sees fit. --Angr/undefined 09:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE she spells it k.d. lang 132.205.45.148 19:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose — her spelling is supported in most print articles I've read, and thu their style manuals. --Gareth Hughes 14:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose — As someone said below, "the correct spelling of her stage name is "k.d. lang". The correct spelling of her legal name (when using initials) is K.D. Lang." The article is under the stage name, not her legal name. Quintusdecimus 18:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose obviously - we should use stage names where they are the common usage. sjorford #£@%&$?!  08:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - we must respect the english language

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments
 * k.d. lang is her stage name. Wikipedia already places articles under stage names instead of real names, such as John Wayne, Ringo Starr, countless others.  And it does so even if the stage name is not a proper Western full name, such as Cher, Madonna, etc.  And it also does so even for stage names that are not proper English, such as 50 Cent.  So I see nothing wrong with k.d. lang (forced to K.d. lang by technical limitations) as the article name.  Note also that DarrenBaker wants to change the casing of her name in the body of the article too.  This seems even more unnecessary: the Prince article is happy to refer to him as [[Image:Prince symbol.svg]] during the time that glyph was his name, surely k.d. lang is mild compared to that!   Wasted Time R 16:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The choice of K.D. Lang to use lowercase letters is a purely stylistic choice. Her proper english name is spelled with capitals. I appreciate that you are great fans and all, but this is an Encyclopedia.

 * Regardless of how this is decided, you can't just copy-and-paste from one article to the other, losing all the history in the process. That's why I've reverted the main article to here again.  Get an admin to approve and do the move, if it is really agreed upon as necessary.   Wasted Time R 15:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

 * My bad, apologies everyone. I will get an admin to do it. DarrenBaker 15:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Result
The votes are 10-3 against the page move: page not moved. Eugene van der Pijll 18:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Various topics
While I appreciate that Ms. Lang's homosexuality is an important part of her life and personality, is it really necessary to have "and identifies as a homosexual" in the very first sentence of the article? Aside from being rather non-sequitur, other articles don't begin (for example): "Jackson Browne is a singer, songwriter, pianist, guitarist and identifies as a heterosexual." While I agree that Ms. Lang's sexual orientation deserves to appear somewhere in the article, isn't it a bit of a double-standard to highlight someone's sexual orientation so early, just because she's not straight? RiseAbove 19:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Someone wrote:
 * CAN ANYONE FIGURE OUT HOW TO NOT START THE WIKI TITLE WITH A CAPITAL "K"?

It's not possible, I'm afraid. --Camembert

 * I was annoyed by wiki limitation in this regard. I don't see any reason why someone can't use lower case if they want to. If you study the history of typography, you will find it is a matter of taste. HOWEVER, I am less annoyed because at least wiki is consistent. Looking up e.e. cummings sort of cooled my jets in this regard. Still, it is amzing in this day and age where we can clone sheep we can't find away of allowing a person known to mass-culture to use his/her preferred style of writing their name. I think this is another example of the way   in which we as a culture have allowed ourselves to sucuumb to the inertia of binary (machine) thinking rather than embrace the human.

thus endith my sermon Jackbox1971 00:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

- Nothing on the Rolling Stones nicking the melody to "constant Craving" for their "Anybody Seen My Baby?" song? Or is that worth mentioning? Koyaanis Qatsi
 * I think it's certainly relevant info. Go ahead and add it.  If I was more sure it was the exact same, I'd add that Velvet Underground's "Sweet Jane" uses the same riff as Tommy James & the Shondells' "Crimson and Clover" (obviously, I wouldn't add it to this article, but Velvet Underground). Tokerboy

Because of wiki-naming conventions, the e.e. cummings article title is E. E. Cummings. With that in mind, this article should be entitled K.D. Lang. Kingturtle 06:24 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

 * That is not the only reason. E.E. Cummings himself preferred to spell his name with capital letters as you will find out with a little research. It was his publishers and readers who preferred the small letter form. -- Derek Ross 06:33 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

 * What he said. In the present case, I think we should stick with "K.d. lang" - it's not perfect, but it's the best we can get. At least this way, it's possible to link to k.d. lang without any messing about - which is more than can be said for k.d. lang . -- Paul A 06:40 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

 * I accept that. With that said, shouldn't it be 'kd lang? sans periods? Kingturtle 06:53 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

 * kdlang.com uses "k.d. lang", for what it's worth. So do all the album covers I could find in a quick look around. (Some of the album covers actually say "k.d.lang", with no spaces, but I think that's just artistic license at work). -- Paul A 07:06 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

 * Frankly,I find treating the capitalization of proper names as other than compulsory as obnoxious as others find my treatment of spacing after punctuation as other than compulsory.It is Miss Lang's preference that her initials not be capitalized,but it is taking her side rather than NPOV on an issue that should be seen as debatable to describe the non-capitalized version as "the correct" version rather than her preference.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 01:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The notice at the top of this article is POV. It states that the correct spelling is "k.d. lang". The correct spelling is clearly KD Lang by modern standards (K.D. Lang, K. D. Lang, etc are also fine). She is entitled to the POV that her pretentious lowercase name is "correct", but Wikipedia must not endorse this. If Wikipedia calls any form "incorrect", it should be the one without proper capitalisation. If we don't want to do that, we should work out a neutral wording. — Chameleon 29 June 2005 15:42 (UTC)
 * the correct spelling of her stage name is "k.d. lang". The correct spelling of her legal name (when using initials) is K.D. Lang.Rd232 talk 12:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

This is really quite ridiculous, seeing as the proper spelling is in fact K.D. Lang. There really is no argument here, that's English, folks. DarrenBaker 15:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Sigh, no, her proper name is Kathryn Dawn Lang, choosing to call herself "K.D." is already a stylistic/artistic choice. True, it's one that has precedent and is often used; but the same could be said of the nature of the case of her name.  Maybe it's just the part of Canada I'm from, but seeing it spelt "K.D. Lang" doesn't even look like the same name.  She is known by the screwy spelling.  It just doesn't make much sense to change it based on vague notions of what is "proper" english.  For the most part, proper can be defined as common usage that stands up to time to a degree (yeah, argue all you want, but we talk and write in ways that would give heart-attacks to Victorian-age english teachers), and I have never in my entire life seen her referred to as "K.D. Lang", save for in this discussion.  Although yes, you can probably tell from my usage of comma-after-quotation-mark that I'm somewhat of a "rationalist" when it comes to the rules of language.  My own POV is clear, then.  But I think it's rather NPOV to refer to someone by the way that everyone else in the world refers to them, nicht wahr? Phil Urich 02:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ain't technology grand? Jackbox1971 00:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the article should be entitled "K.D. Lang". While her real name is Kathryn Dawn Lang, she is most widely know by her initials and family name. The article is about the woman, not only the performer. If she wants to brand herself as k. d. lang, that's between her and her publicists. Look at the article for Coca-Cola... the title is in a non-serif typeface and the logo displayed is the stylized script typeface. The K. D. Lang article should be the same. Maybe the lower case k.d. lang could be put under the logo heading in her infobox. CWPappas 05:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Ah, I see. So an artist shouldn't be at an article named after their extremely well known pseudonym. So that's why the article about popular entertainer and writer Madonna Louise Ciccone Ritchie is at... Madonna (entertainer)? :P Stage names are official pseudonyms, and spelling is a key part of that. I almost could not care less about this person, actually (I've never even heard her music to the best of my knowledge), so you know I'm NPOV on this because I am absolutely not a fan of hers, I'm just familiar with her name (and to a lesser extent had heard she was a lesbian and a gay rights activist) basically. But the article - and I cannot believe people are bothering to argue against this, I really can't, it just boggles my mind - should use the name - and spelling - that she is known by and that her work is published under, which happens to be spelled awkwardly as k.d. lang. To spell it any other way is akin to calling Mark Twain, Samuel Clemens, though to use a more modern and closer example, akin to calling the iPod an IPod; it may follow English grammar better, but it's NOT the real name of the product, which is registered with the U.S. government as a trademark... given that Ms. Lang publishes her work under k.d. lang, this probably means that it is spelled that way on any government copyright registrations as well, making it even more correct as that would then be her legal pseudonym. And if you don't think spelling of a name is that important? Ashlee Simpson. Would you spell her first name "Ashley", just because Ashlee seems like a pretentious variation on a traditional name? Would you change [{Britney Spears]]' first name's spelling to the traditional "Brittany"? Of course not! And what about the fact that many foreign names have portions in them that don't quite follow English spelling rules? English grammar normally states that all portions of a name should be capitalized, as y'all are noting quite fervently. However, I have a friend whose surname is da Costa. Not Da Costa or DaCosta - da Costa. That is the appropriate Portuguese spelling, and thus the proper spelling. No ifs, ands, or buts.

 * The fact of the matter is, as much as it may annoy you, her official pseudonym by which she is most famously known is k.d. lang; not K.D Lang or anything else, but k.d. lang. If you have a problem with this, take it up with Ms. Lang, not the Wikipedia article on her. 4.235.27.186 21:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No matter how obnoxious it is, Wikipedia's naming conventions clearly allow for stage names and virtually every journalistic style guide I can find specifies k.d. lang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.103.71.159 (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Lesbian
"In addition to her musical talents, k.d. lang has championed lesbian causes"

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought she was a lesbian, pubically declared by her self? If so, I believe the article should mention that she is a lesbian. Hiding/censoring this aspect of her personality seems POV. If she is a lesbian perhaps we can incorporate it into the article? --ShaunMacPherson 00:44, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * If it's "POV",doesn't it cut both ways?(To those who think it glorious that she's a lesbian,she is denied credit,to those who think it shameful,she is spared scandalous exposure).Not actually taking a side on mentioning it,just observing...L.E/12.144.5.2 04:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project
In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 21:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Concort
Remark recieved at the contactpoint of Wikipedia EN; --Walter 22:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

''I read somewhere that k.d. lang was born in Edmonton, Alberta, and her family moved to Consort, Alberta, when she was nine months old. Wikipedia states that she was born in Concort. Maybe someone could check this out.''

Meat stinks controversy
Should her "meat stinks" ad controversy be mentioned? Between that and her lesbianism, it prompted the residents of Consort to publicly denounce her and basically disowned her from anything to do with their community. It was a fairly significant campaign in Alberta at the time —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.148.42.175 (talk • contribs) 10:23, January 17, 2006.
 * It's already mentioned, but I think that the campaign as a whole really should have an article of its own; it was a huge deal and I remember reading about it, and I'm not even from Canada or the US. --Qirex 09:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Images
THe images on the page were recently removed and have now been re-added to the article. they were remobved as it was said they constituted an infringment to the fair use policy of wikipedia. I would like input as to what people think on the issue and if the images do constitue a fair use copywright infringment the suiitable replacement need finding before the removal of the current images.--134.225.235.13 18:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Please look at the licence tags for album cover, and for magazine cover on the image description pages of the two images I removed. The tags clearly state what constitute fair use.  Album covers are to be used to provide critical commentary for the album - "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question".  Here it was used to illustrate the person - not fair use.  Same with the magazine cover - "to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question" and "It is not acceptable to use images with this tag in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used directly in connection with the publication of this image. Such usages will be removed."  There was no direct connection except for a one line reference under the heading of trivia that did not discuss the magazine or the image in any way.  This is not up for debate as this has been Wikipedia policy for a long time.  There are so many incorrectly used images that it takes time to identify them all, so you'll probably notice there are a lot of articles which use album covers or magazine (or book) covers in this way.   But they're wrong and eventually they'll get fixed too.   It's not our policy to keep offending images in articles until we find a replacement, as this offers no incentive for anyone to actually find a free image, so please do not revert. Rossrs 21:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

How to source something like this?
Regarding the nature of lang's role in "Eye of the Beholder": all you have to do is watch the freaking movie and it's self-evident, so what kind of source can one put there? If she wears a blue dress in the movie and I write she wore a blue dress do I have to source it??? What are the standards for self-evidence in the Wiki?thanks--Tednor 21:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think something visual like a "blue dress" is self-evident while something such as emotiveness of performances is not. I would simply find a review which mentions lang's performance and cite that. This is what I've read in some reviews of the film, so I'm not positive you're going to find what you're looking for:

- Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 20:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Crooner k.d. lang, cast as McGregor's contact at his unnamed government agency, borders on obnoxious while trying to exude affectionate moxie."
 * "Folksinger k.d. lang plays Eye's colleague, a role in which she does nothing but appear on a laptop screen or talk into one. Mainly, her role consists of cursing about how Eye wants her to run a computer check that could get her fired. Then she runs it."
 * "singer/songwriter k.d. Lang is even in the movie, cast as a fellow investigator who helps the "Eye" with all of his troubles, although the screenplay gives her nothing to do but to sit behind a computer screen."

You are missing the fundamental element of what I wrote and also the note I attached to what I wrote, which specifically state that the part as written required Lang to emote more than Judd, NOT that her performance was as such. It's quite obvious that lang's character is contrasted to the emotionally stifled and sociopathic character played by Judd. Furthermore, I couldn't disagree more with the "reviewers", having actually watched the movie and attempted to absorb it's storyline ( i never read a single review but those guys are so off the mark it's not even funny!) At any rate, I'm NOT nor do I want to, judge lang's performance in this article, Merely i want to point out that the role is a choice morsel for the reason I've stated. If you are calling into question on factual basis, then I'm going to have to ask WHICH fact you are questioning, as you seem to have confused the literal intent of the statement.--4.159.8.165 19:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup template.
I added the cleanup tag because this page needs to be organized into paragraphs as opposed to being a list of things that happened to her or that she did. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 04:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Why the strange capitalization?
I understand that she spells her name in all lower-case as "artistic expression", but shouldn't the article make mention of it, or have at least ONE sentence describing her thinking or the reasons behind her choosing to be billed this way? --Schmendrick 20:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

sometimes uses her androgenous aperance?
excuse me? this is what is wrong with wikipedia. the statement she sometimes utilieses her androgenous aperance is sombodys way of trying to say she looks like a man in this encyclopedia without getting deleted. It is 100% inapropriate for this article and 100% inapropriate for wikipedia. keep your personal opinions to yourself if you havent got the guts to say them properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.1.194 (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

name revisited
I don't understand. The clear majority of talk page is in favor of using her stage name, the name she is most famous for, and the name she chooses for herself, which is k.d. lang. A request to move it to K.D. Lang apparently failed in 2005, judging by the comments in the votes, and yet the page is at K.D. Lang, and the introduction and page uses capitalization which is not consistent with her stage name. The fact that it's initialized actually makes less sense. Either use her birth name, Kathryn Dawn Lang, throughout (in clear violation of wikipedia styleguides) or use her stage name, k.d. lang, in conformance with wikipedia style guides. For the record I was referred here by an AV Club (The Onion) article. I anticipate a flood of people from there soon. It's already started to trickle. --Charles (Kznf) (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It should be changed. How do we go about doing that without getting anyone upset? Manderr (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've fixed it. No one minds I hope? If someone wishes to change it back they should discuss things here first. Manderr (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Now now, it's takes a little time to sit down and write an answer to Charles' post that's not just a blunt read-the-guidelines!-rebuttal but a comprehensive explanation of why things are done this way. And asking how to resolve an issue on a talk page and then just going ahead with an obviously controversial edit about ten minutes later is not really the best practice for consensus building, especially since the change introduces inconsistency with the article name - no offense.
 * Anyway, Charles, you are referring to this article, I presume? Incidentally, it touches on a matter I have always considered particularly unnerving, namely how a lot of energy goes into debating stylistic bits while matters of actual content fall short. In that context, the AV Club article mentions a few topics that are supposedly synonymous with Lang's public life and I'd like to add that the article is still rather poorly referenced.
 * That being said, one underlying rationale for normalizing capitalization, besides others, such as optimizing readability and striving for a consistent appearance (obviously desirable for a general purpose publication like this one) is to avoid drawing undue attention to certain subjects through stylized typography.
 * And when it comes to matters of neutrality, one obviously has to look beyond the stage name of a single musician and consider names of all kinds of subjects, people, companies, brands and so forth, on a Wikipedia-wide level. It would also be a neutral approach of sorts to generally follow a subject's preferred typographic style. But by and large, for fears that such a practice would still make the encyclopedia they are working one look like everyone's billboard, I suspect, editors have chosen to rather go with standard English. That's how guidelines such as WP:MOSTM came to be, which by the way is also referred to in WikiProject Music's collected guidelines in connection with the formatting of the names of bands and individual musicians. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord, people. I also found this page because of the Onion's AV Club article, and I think it's ridiculous that her stage name is mischaracterized here. If you "correct" her name here, you would also need to "correct" Jon Stewart's name since he was born "Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz" (which that webpage correctly notes, though the page is listed under "Jon Stewart"). You would also need to "correct" pages for iPod, Michael Jackson's HIStory album, eHarmony, and the list goes on and on. Don't you people see that "k.d. lang" is clearly a stylish stage name the singer has given herself? "K.D. Lang" refers to nothing--certainly not what's on her birth certificate, and you won't find that capitalized spelling on any of her albums, concert programs, or in any major newspaper reviews. I think this should give the primary editors here pause. I don't even listen to k.d. lang's music much, but I had to voice my opinion here--an opinion that is basically fact. Steverino (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I just checked, and we have the article: E. E. Cummings, not e.e. cummings. Aleta  Sing 02:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, although that's not a very comparable case, because Cummings himself never approved of the lower-case rendering of his name. See the article for details. Brian D. Foy and Bell Hooks are probably better examples. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the Cummings example is not relevant here, since it was a printing decision thrust upon the author. k.d. lang has chosen the lowercase spelling as her stage name, and we should reflect that here. Here's an extreme example of my point: The band "!!!". They chose a wild and crazy stage name, and Wiki correctly reprints it in their listing. Wiki should not be in the business of "correcting" stage names because there's no such thing as an "incorrect" stage name if the artist has approved it.Steverino (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would encourage you to find out why we choose standard typography over unconventional choices made by artists, trademark holders, etc. It's not about "correcting" the name; it's about not giving some names special attention. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I posted this on the bell hooks page as well: I think it is inconsistent to only apply this "attention-grabbing" rule to punctuation and capitalization; If a writer made a brand for herself with the name !!!bellhooks!!! (one word) that would be permissable by Wiki standards, am I right?Steverino (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... some brand names do get their fancy punctuation removed as a rule around here. For example, the musician Pink often renders her name as P!nk, the television show Thirtysomething always billed itself as thirtysomething, and We Love Katamari always refers to itself as We ♥ Katamari. With that last example, you start running into accessibility problems, because not every browser will properly display the heart character. On the other hand, eBay and iPod keep their initial lowercase letter, and Yahoo! and Jeopardy! keep their punctuation. These agreements were mostly forged in discussions on particular pages, and also at WT:MOSTM and WT:MOSCL. I'm not sure just how we would handle someone who bills herself as "!!!bellhooks!!!". -GTBacchus(talk) 02:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to make the title of the k.d. lang page lowercase. I edited the page and added "lowercase|title=k.d. lang" with brackets but that doesn't seem to work.Steverino (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that template will make the 'k' lower-case, but to get the 'd' as well, you'd have to move the page. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Along with eBay and iPod, another example of a Wikipedia article that permits non-standard capitalization is BedZED. I believe it's time to reconsider moving the K.D. Lang article to a page with an all-lower-case title, with the necessary redirects (if that's what it takes to achieve the change). Let's have another vote! Russ London (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

 * According to the article, "BedZED" stands for "Beddington Zero Energy Development"; capitalizing acronyms and initialisms is standard English. In regard to the lowercasing of separable prefixes found in eBay and iPod, other editors have argued that this form has in fact become a part of standard English orthography. While I remain more or less neutral towards that assessment (English not being my first language and all), I support the application of the respective rule in our Manual of Style while it is in effect. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. Her name is k.d. lang in lower case. She can write it any way she wants. I have the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll in front of me - heaven forbid, a proper published reviewed piece of literature - and they have k.d. lang. Goes to show how completely useless and pathetic Wikipedia is when it can't even get something basic as someone's name right. Give up, amateurs.

Cut-and-paste
Please do not try to change the title of this page with a "cut-and-paste" move. Page moves must be carried out properly per WP:MOVE, in order to preserve the contributor history of the page per our GFDL. If you want to rename the page, you'll have to build consensus for the change, and that happens here, on this talk page. Maybe somewhere at WP:MOS, too. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, I'm the one who tried the cut-and-paste move. I'm not trying to sabotage this page; I truly believe it is incorrect as is and that keeping it uppercase is not a stylistic choice. It is simply incorrect. But I will not change the page if I am violating rules and need a consensus as noted above. Can one of the moderators please advise how to build this consensus so we can properly change the title? Can we have a revote? What are the rules of this consensus-building process, and how many "yays" do I need in my favor before we can change? Thanks. Steverino (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I didn't figure you were trying to sabotage anything. Consensus here (see Consensus) is a bit more complicated than a certain number of "yeas" versus "nays". Voting like that works when there's a group of fixed size participating, but here it would be trivial to round up 100 people to get accounts and "vote". The only thing we would really learn from such a vote is who has more friends. Instead, we build consensus through discussion. In the discussion, we try to take into account policies and guidelines that were established through previous consensus agreements, because those earlier decisions, while they can change at any time, still carry weight until it becomes clear that they've changed. In the case of this particular article, the conversation has happened at least once in the past - see the top of this page, where it appears that the conversation was treated a bit too much like a vote. The idea is to not do it that way, but to let arguments, rather than people, make the decision. That means that a good argument can win against greater numbers. Here's the short direct answer: Start a talk page section here, raising the question, and see what people think. When you seem to have a bit of support, go to Requested moves and file a request, following the instructions there. If you run into much static, which you will, you might want to hold the discussion in a more general light, which would happen at the talk page(s) of WP:MOSTM or WP:MOSCL or both. (Those are style guidelines, the shortcuts (like "MOSTM") are just for convenient linking.) I hope that helps. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that does help. You people are so quick with the responses! I'm impressed. I'll try to start some kind of dialogue here and possibly on the WP style pages and see what happens. Steverino (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely a joke
Please tell me this:

 * Also in 1983, she presented a performance art piece, a seven-hour re-enactment of the transplantation of an artificial heart for Barney Clark, a retired American dentist.

is someone's idea of a joke. It has a ref, but not an Internet ref (it's a book, maybe a fictitious one). So unless someone has the book, it can't be checked. What do others say? A creative piece of vandalism? Should we just remove it? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I found another source that says the same thing. Aleta  Sing  17:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, you can read the relevant page of the book in the Google books preview. So, no, apparently this is not a joke or vandalism. Aleta  Sing  17:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSCAPS
WP:MOSCAPS is quite clear that this article can and should be renamed: "Some individuals do not want their personal names capitalized. In such cases, Wikipedia articles may use lower case variants of personal names if they have regular and established use in reliable third-party sources." In addition to the singer's own web site (a primary source) we do have reliable third party references proving that k.d. lang is correct. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was Moved to k.d. lang. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

K.D. Lang → k.d. lang — As WP:MOSCAPS says, "Some individuals do not want their personal names capitalized. In such cases, Wikipedia articles may use lower case variants of personal names if they have regular and established use in reliable third-party sources." (emphasis mine) The all-lowercase spelling of "k.d. lang" is verified through multiple third-party sources in the article, indicating that the all-lowercase spelling is the most common use. Therefore, the article should be moved to match. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree It should be moved. as per WP:MOSCAPS. Jenafalt (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree The correct title of this article is lowercase.  GB fan  talk 01:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, k.d. lang is one of the most prominent people who don't capitalise their name. Thryduulf (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral - there's considerable outside use, but I'm not sure why we should allow people who decide on a whim not to capitalize their name to do so when we explicitly do not endorse the same from any other subject. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Per WP:MOSCAP. -- Irn (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:MOSTM. Typographical eccentricities are not an inherent part of a name.  —   AjaxSmack   01:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment You're citing the MOS guideline on trademarks, but this is a personal name, which is covered elsewhere in the MOS. -- Irn (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Comment it appears from the logs and talk page archives that the page was originally at the all lowercase spelling, and there was consenus against moving it to the capitalised title in 2005. It was subjected to various move wars, including at least one cut and paste move in 2007-8 with the outcome of all discussions on the talk that the correct title is k.d. lang. It was seemingly then moved to the present title, against consensus, last year. Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article can always be move-protected. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever the outcome of this request, I think move protection might not be a bad idea given the history. Thryduulf (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

 *  Oppose Weak Support, wasn't there already a discussion/consensus on keeping with the caps? See also caps at E. E. Cummings... I'll try to provide more rationale when I get the time. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * E. E. Cummings explicitly didn't self-identify in lowercase. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed vote to Weak support per nom citing MOSCAPS; see also Grammy website (search k.d. lang; results come in lowercase). It's weak because I still seem to recall some sort of caps consensus; also I personally just don't like the lowercase. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't like it is not a valid reason to support or oppose anything. Regarding the consensus, as far as I can see from the talk page and its archive there has only ever been consensus for lowercase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) 09:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's why it's a support rather than oppose. If consensus has been lowercase (which it appears to have been, by looking at talk), then my consensus argument could obviously be disregarded without comment from me; my WP:IDON'TLIKEIT is just my opinion, and wasn't meant to influence move consensus. Either way, these can be disregarded because I have....
 * Changed vote to "Support" because though this is not, in my opinion, a 'personal name' as mentionned at MOSCAPS, there seems to be precedent with band names such as moe. and múm; this 'artist name' should be no different. Also as I mentionned previously, there is general usage (ie Grammys) of lowercase. Sorry for the confusing flip-flopping. -M.Nelson (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Support, per above this should have happened a while ago. -- Banj e  b oi   15:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

k.d. lang, not K. d. lang
The result of the debate to move was to make the title of the article k.d. lang, not K.d. lang, which is what has actually happened. I think it needs to be moved again. Jenafalt (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Page names cannot start with a lowercase letter. Hence the use of lowercase title to pretend that it does.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Is fixed now, thanks. Jenafalt (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization discussion at the manual of style
For all interested parties, there is a discussion going on right now at the Manual of Style about whether or not to capitalize people's names against their wishes (like k.d. lang, for example). -- Irn (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "...about whether or not to capitalize people's names against their wishes...." How very Wiki-ish.  Is this an inbred "culture" or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.113.155 (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"vegetarian" vs. "vegan"?
(Sorry, seems my account has gone.)

In the article, I see k.d. lang described as vegetarian, while at the same time, she's listed in the list of vegans. Should this be changed here? --78.53.218.135 (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can find evidence of one or the other make the change, but they aren't mutually exclusive and "vegetarian" is the safe option.78.86.61.94 (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Poor photo
Surely there must be a better photo than that. It looks like Paul Whitehouse choking on a phlegm-ball, or a lemon. Melonbonce (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I found one with the right license at flickr and uploaded it. Let's hope this one meets your standards. --CutOffTies (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization and the MOS
WP:MOSCL states "For proper names and trademarks that are given in mixed or non-capitalization by their owners (such as k.d. lang, adidas and others), follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules." That seems to directly address whether to capitalize K.D.Lang's name throughout the article. Standard text formatting and capitalization rules are to capitalize proper names. It even goes on to say that "[t]he mixed or non-capitalized formatting should be mentioned in the article lead, or illustrated with a graphical logo." I fail to see any ambiguity here, and I can't understand why anyone would continue to revert standard capitalization back to all lowercase. Andyparkerson (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cause that portion of the MOS is stupid. Especially in cases like this where lang is NOT known anywhere under the capitalized version of K D Lang and when we make arbitrary exceptions for things like iPhone. -- The Red Pen of Doom  02:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the MOS, change it. That is where this argument needs to occur. Andyparkerson (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (common names) already says "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." The most common name of k.d. lang is k.d. lang, not K.D. Lang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.12.52 (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME does not address matters of capitalization with a single word. But it does link to WP:MOSTM, which provides detailed guidelines for handling nonstandard capitalization (and by and large suggests to dismiss it). Our guidelines for music related articles (WP:MUSTARD) also link to that page, in the context of band and artist names. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:MOSTM is about trademarks and is therefore irrelevant to this discussion. K.d. lang is a person's name (not even a "stage name" as you keep pretending), not a trademark. —Angr 14:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * exactly how do you define "stage name" so that it does not include lang's lower case spacing adjusted monicer? -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A stage name is a type of pseudonym, a name that is significantly distinct from one's official, legal name, and taken for use as a performer. Using one's initials, or using a full name and an initial, or using only one given name when one has several, or using a nickname that is derived from one's given name, doesn't qualify as a pseudonym. Using any one of the last names one has legally borne in the course of one's life doesn't qualify as a pseudonym either. Whoopi Goldberg is a stage name for Caryn Elaine Johnson. George Burns is a stage name for Nathan Birnbaum. But A. A. Milne, C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, E. B. White, E. E. Cummings, and E. M. Forster are not pseudonyms for Alan Alexander Milne, Clive Staples Lewis, John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, Elwyn Brooks White, Edward Estlin Cummings, and Edgar Morgan Forster. And k.d. lang, with any capitalization and any spacing between the initials, is not a pseudonym for Kathryn Dawn Lang. It's just the version of her name that she uses professionally. —Angr 21:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hurrah! Her name isn't capitalized! Thus ends (I hope) one of wikipedia's more ludicrous disputes and its root, a flaw in the MOS. 81.132.83.199 (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the first paragraph makes a point of saying that there is no space between the initials and cites two references. One of which is her own site, which doesn't appear to say anything on the subject at all (although their typography suggests that her webmaster prefers to set it without a space), and the other is Who2.com, which clearly uses the space. I think it's fine to treat the space as a matter of style and leave it out, but to specifically state that it must be left out appears to be not correct.Vanhorn (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move: k.d lang → K. D. Lang

 * 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.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move, resolution of inconsistencies in various capitalization guidelines is unproductive on an RM by RM basis. Mike Cline (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

K.d. lang → K. D. Lang – We have guidelines that stipulate the use of conventional capitalization for musician names (MOS:MUSIC), for trademarks (WP:MOSTM), and in article titles (WP:CAPS). All three apply here. So case closed? Not so fast. There is some curious language in MOSCAPS that carves out an exception tailored to this article. As the guideline explains, “Some individuals do not want their personal names capitalized." This is terrible logic and the potential for mischief is obvious. (“If Lang can get an exception, why can’t Seven be Se7en?”) So I’m hoping that after we move the article we can cut this cute little pustule out of the guidelines. The subject’s name is given in the proposed form by CNN, Amazon, and the New York Times. The libraries are all cataloging her work under “K D Lang”, according to Worldcat. Kauffner (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines are:
 * “Standard English text formatting and capitalization rules apply to the names of bands and individual artists.” (MOS:MUSIC)
 * The “standard rule" is as follows:
 * 8.4 Capitalization of personal names. Names and initials of persons, real or fictitious, are capitalized.” Chicago Manual of Style, p. 388. (P. D. James is given as an example.) CMOS provides this explanatory note on its Web site: “Occasionally a celebrity can get away with demanding special treatment, but since editors cannot know the personal preferences of every person, we prefer to follow a guideline and apply it consistently."

 * “Choose among styles already in use...and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English” (WP:MOSTM)
 * Adhere “to conventions [for capitalization] widely used in the genre.” (WP:CAPS)
 * "Some individuals do not want their personal names capitalized. In such cases, Wikipedia articles may use lower case variants of personal names if they have regular and established use in reliable third-party sources (for example, k.d. lang)." (MOSCAPS) Kauffner (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

survey

 * oppose; I see lowercasing as significantly less problematic than all-caps, especially for personal names (as opposed to stage names). There is a long tradition dating back at least to e.e. cummings of using lowercase, and it presents as significantly less self-aggrandizing than all-caps.  I see this as akin (though not perfectly so) to the capitalization exceptions we make for iTunes and eBay.  Powers T 19:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Cummings never wrote his name that way. Others merely wrote it that way because he rarely used capitalization in his work.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 21:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose See above debate, WP:MOSCAP -- Irn (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose: This has already been established as the case for all lower case names and set up as an exception per previous consensuses.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 21:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose. referenced as lowercase everywhere. Alarbus (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So the The New York Times doesn't count? I was sure this nomination would get some kind of reaction. But it doesn't look anyone bothered to read it. Kauffner (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Comment. The singer has trademarked the name in the form "k. d. lang". So "k. d. lang" is indeed a trademark, and when used as one, attracting the rights that trademarks are intended to confer (in commercial or public life), it therefore comes under WP:MOSTM. But the story is complicated. That MOS page includes these provisions (beyond what has already been pointed out above):
 * Capitalize trademarks, as with proper names
 * Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official"
 * Trademarks rendered without any capitals are always capitalized
 * So if we are citing the form "k. d. lang" as it is used in commercial or public life, and if that is truly the relevant consideration, then clearly the title ought to be "K. D. Lang" ("Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if ...").
 * This argument is not to be dismissed lightly. At a recent RM, Bollinger Bands was kept capitalised ("Bands") at the insistence of Bollinger himself, on the basis that it happened to be recently trademarked (though it is a generically used technical term that the article did not even mention was trademarked). From this and some other recent cases, it seems that there is a job of clarification to do at WP:MOSTM.
 * N oetica Tea? 06:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Support – per MOS:TM, even though it's not perfect. Dicklyon (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: We should be using MOS to ensure articles are written in a suitably consistent style, not as an excuse to amend people's identities. It's her stage name - WP:V is a policy, MOS is a guideline. Ben   Mac  Dui  12:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Is there an actual problem here? No. It's widely known that the singer in question styles herself "k. d. lang"; what's the problem with using this style in Wikipedia? Equally, if the article had been titled "K. D. Lang", would that be an actual problem to be changed the other way? No. This discussion is just another example of a desire to impose unnecessary conformity. If all the time that editors spend arguing about fringe matters of style were spent on creating and correcting content, Wikipedia would be much better. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I answered these questions already in the nomination. Yes, it's creating a problem. The problem is not so much with the article title itself, but rather the fact there is a special loophole in the guidelines tailored to this article. This allows editors to argue that if Lang can have her lowercased initials, celeb X should be able to have his all caps/numeral/dollar sign whatever. There are three separate guidelines that stipulate standard capitalization for musician names in article titles. So there are plenty of instructions already. All that needs to be done is to remove the language that creates the loophole. Kauffner (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's creating a problem. No, at most it creates a potential problem. There's no actual problem. So there's no need for any change. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * At any rate, the argument is one that several editors are currently deploying. Otherwise, I would never have heard of this singer or article. There are certainly plenty of sources to justify moving the subject's name to the proposed form. Kauffner (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem with drawing a line between respecting an artist's desire to have her personal name lowercased, and accommodating similar requests for uppercasing or special characters. That may not be where some people want the line drawn, but it's where the line has been for a long time.  Powers T 15:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Is there an actual problem here?" Yes.  Either a reader is familiar with K.D. Lang or is not.  For readers familiar with her, there is little potential for confusion if her name is capitalized (i.e., there are no other K.D. Langs).  However, for readers unfamiliar with her, a lowercase personal name in English is incongruous at best and confusing at worst.  There is a reason Wikipedia has a style manual: to reduce confusion and reach as broad an audience as possible, not just readers of a certain age, background, or nationality (see the intro to WP:MOS as well as WP:BIAS).  Cutesy typography, even if temporally and geographically appropriate, is not worthy of a general reference work with a worldwide purview.  —  AjaxSmack   19:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose. The use of the "consistency" argument as a tool to fix a "I Don't Like It" is inappropriate. Consistency is to use the name of the artist as used by the artist. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Support per nom, in particular the citation: "occasionally a celebrity can get away with demanding special treatment, but since editors cannot know the personal preferences of every person, we prefer to follow a guideline and apply it consistently". Wikipedia has a style manual — let's use it.  In addition, Wikipedia is a serious general reference that strives to present a wide scope of information to a worldwide audience (see also WP:BIAS)  It is not a fansite or even a music encyclopedia (cf. Allmusic) so it should eschew nonstandard typography that serves to obscure the nature of the subject to a reader unfamiliar with it.  —  AjaxSmack   18:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we do have a rule that we apply consistently. It's a policy, at WP:COMMONNAME, and it takes precedence over guidelines such as the MOS. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Support It is less-than-encyclopedic to be using stylized forms of stage names such as “k.d. lang”, “Mi$ha” and EMINƎM. More encyclopedic titles for this particular entertainer are “Kathryn Dawn Lang” or “K.D. Lang”. Search-field entries such as “k.d. lang” can simply redirect. This isn’t about picking on Kathryn or her fans, but in properly addressing the concerns of fans and certain editors active on articles for other entertainers. These people, faced with push-back on having titles with stylized stage names, question what they perceive as a double standard. Greg L (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You meant Ke$ha, not Mi$ha]]. Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose "k.d. lang" is correct. "K.D. Lang" is not correct.  There is no justification for misspelling a person's name. Chrisrus (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose Popular music is an odd intersection of art and commerce, where "breaking the rules" is accepted practice. It is also accepted practice here at Wikipedia, per WP:IGNORE.  We should be embracing complexity and reflecting it accurately, not working to over-simplify and whitewash over it.  We need to leave this article name alone, strengthen the "loophole" that has got some of y'all's undershorts into uncomfortable positions, and then rename Kesha to Ke$ha just to prove the point.  Otherwise, we'll be on the slippery slope toward renaming Madonna (entertainer) to Madonna Ciccone because "any reasonable person would expect her to have a last name." -- Foetusized (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose, the MOS is a guide intended to help present information consistently, it is not a purpose or goal in and of itself. The authors of the Chicago MOS, which our MOS aficionados appear to hold in high esteem, state that if a MOS interferes with the presentation of accurate information, the MOS should be disregarded. The 'problem' as described is also a red herring. Unusual capitalisation of the name of an individual or product is not confusing to the majority of the English-reading public, because the majority of sources outside Wikipedia don't worship their own style guides as badly as Wikipedia does. People are accustomed to seeing unusual capitalisation in names, and it's not Wikipedia's purpose to serve itself in the face of common usage. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:V both apply here, Wikipedia should not be altering the capitalisation (and thus the meaning) of names in this manner. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How many times do I have to ask people to read the nomination? Next time, I'll try using hieroglyphics. There are authoritative sources that give the subject's name in the proposed form. It is certainly verifiable. Kauffner (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I read the nomination and I'm well aware some sources use name-casing. Did you read the link two words prior to WP:V in my response that mentioned WP:COMMONNAME, part of our WP:AT policy? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's odd to invoke COMMONNAME, implying that you think that k.d. lang and K. D. Lang are not the same name. I believe the rest of us see it as a styling question, since sources, including here trademark registration, make it clear that they are the same name.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They're not the same name. I've stated numerous times in the past, including directly to you, Dick, that capitalisation alters the meaning of words. Capitalisation is not, nor has it ever been, a purely stylistic concern. You're welcome to speak for yourself on what you see as a styling issue, naturally, and I think others can speak for themselves. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I already opposed, but if anyone, including WP:RSes upon which the article is based, spells her name "K.D.Lang", they are wrong. The proper spelling is "k.d. lang" because that's how she spells it.

In English, individuals determine the correct spellings and pronunciations of their own names. If other sources want to ignore that and spell it wrong, that's their decision and their right. You have a right to be wrong, but you're still wrong. I don't want Wikipedia to spell her name wrong, and you'll never get consensus to change it to K.D. Lang because I'm not the only English speaker on Wikipedia that cannot be swayed from this conviction despite your rational, coherent logic that we should spell it "K.D. Lang". Thanks for opening this thread 'cuz it's been fun, I understand how you feel about what guidelines say and all, but this proposal has lost. Chrisrus (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Chrisrus, this is just a self-admitted crusade on Kauffner's part to eliminate any sort of leeway in MOS:TM and the other manuals of style when it comes to people's stage names. Kauffner, Dicklyon, and Greg L are simply editors who think that the manual of style is a set of rules written in stone. I believe they are seeking to make a point after I attempted to get some clarity at WT:AT over the apparent kerfluffle I started when I requested that Kesha be moved to "Ke$ha", with an RM at DJ OZMA, based on the fact that this page is at k.d. lang and we have pages like bell hooks, brian d foy, and will.i.am. I believe everyone in here should add their opinion to the discussion at WT:AT, because this very vocal minority of 3 editors should not be the ones to enforce a set of guidelines as unbending rules, such as Greg L's insistence that " [he can only assume that a bat-shit-crazy, rabid following on [k.d. lang] established a local consensus in violation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS "].— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 23:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was thinking about that; that's the most important thing, IMHO, if it's true: is there wording in the style manual that we could call for shortand "the k.d. lang exception"; to clarify that the correct spelling of someone's name is determined not by us but by the person in question? Let's fix that.  Chrisrus (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Spelling is not in question here, just styling. The trademark "k.d. lang" is registered to an individual named K. D. Lang according to the US PTO.  But like most outfits, they probably have no idea how people want their names styled, and they probably store it without a case distinction and then reproduce it using standard rules for names.  Or maybe they do store it with case, and that's the way she wrote it on her application.  Don't really know.  But it's her trademark and she's free to style it as she likes.  Personally, I'd prefer that WP style it more normally, but I'm more willing to tolerate these lowercase names than all-caps names.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if it's a trademark. It's how they write their name. Why should we, as an encyclopedia, change this?— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 06:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Because *facts* (*sound of audience gasp*) matter, as do proper encyclopedic practices. K.D. Lang doesn’t write her signature like our article currently has it. As you seem to earnestly desire (do as they actually write their name); I’m all for it. If don’t actually mean “how they write their name” and instead mean “write it as their publicist and agents demand it be formatted for commercial and promotional purposes,” then no, I disagree with you; Wikipedia is an  encyclopedia , not a vehicle for her promoter. Greg L (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we needed to outdent that, but enough on that tangent, and that does not seem to be a recent photograph or autograph by the woman, and enough on that tangent. Whatever the fact of the matter is, reliable sources and the subject (whether herself or her publicists actions) refer to the subject as "k.d. lang" and not "K.D. Lang" or any other variation, regardless of it existing as a trademark or not.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 21:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Quoting you: Whatever the fact of the matter is, well… I wouldn’t want to inconvenience you with “whatever the facts are” or anything so onerous. I’ve seen this sort of debate tactic before, where ample evidence is presented to disprove a point you raise, only to be countered with a *new and improved* reasoning du jour (also known as “catch me if you can”). Doesn’t impress. Greg L (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If everything from her or her camp uses the name "k.d. lang", why should we switch to a house style? This is the form accepted under the current capitalization policies and guidelines. Why should a bunch of MOS warriors such as yourself and Kauffner who refer to the situation on this page as "bat-shit crazy" or refer to the endeavour as "a war" suddenly decide to change the status quo? There was a decision made on this page ages ago to use lang's preferred form, or at least the form that is used to refer to her all over. All of the arguments towards moving this page are along the lines of "I don't like how this page is an exception to the norm" instead of allowing the exception to the norm for capitalization when it's already written in the manual of style to allow it and it's been that way since 2007. Clearly there's an allowed site-wide consensus for this title, the title of brian d foy, and the title of bell hooks, and not the "bat-shit-crazy, rabid following [that] established a local consensus" as you referred to it, Greg. And while we're on that topic, the Chicago Manual of Style allows this kind of stylization: .— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 23:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Every RM is a proposal to change the consensus and status quo. CMOS gives "bell hooks" as an example of an "unconventional spelling", i.e. an exception to the rules. They don't have a special rule about lowercasing names equivalent to ours. If this article was doing its "local consensus" thing, I would never know or care about it. The idea here is get the "k.d. lang exception" out of the guideline before someone tries to add a Ke$ha exception, P!nk exception, melody. exception, EMINƎM exception, Se7en exception, DJ OZMA exception, or other such nonsense. Kauffner (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But this "k.d. lang exception" has existed for 5 years on the English Wikipedia and exists within the CMOS as well. Clearly, the site-wide consensus on the English Wikipedia is that the "k.d. lang exception" is already in force, and allows for other pages like bell hooks, brian d foy, etc. It is already entrenched in our house style and this is just a knee jerk reaction to my WT:AT thread seeking to get the status quo on all stylizations to change. This is, as you put it, a "war on clownishly capitalized and punctuated celebrity names", after all.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 04:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no K. D. Lang exception in CMOS, no general exception for lower-cased names. Only bell hooks is mentioned as an exception to the rule. “Occasionally a celebrity can get away with demanding special treatment, but since editors cannot know the personal preferences of every person, we prefer to follow a guideline and apply it consistently." Kauffner (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The simplicity of this is being bogged down with too much camouflage and spurious issues. The article states this fact: known by her stage name k.d. lang. Hmmm… “stage name,” huh? Well, EMINƎM also prefers that particular form for his stage name. Yet we don’t use that stylization here. Why not? To seize your reasoning right from your very fingertips, I could write If everything from his camp uses the name "EMINƎM", why should we switch to a house style? Marshall Bruce MathersIII (a.k.a. Eminem) might legitimately visit Wikipedia and wonder “Why do I suck?!?” The answer, of course, to why we ought not use vanity (“see me… I’m *special*”) stage styles is “Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not MTV, nor is it a black-light poster in the bedrooms of Beavis & Butthead. Moreover, even a rapper probably has fancier footwork than K.D. Lang; I went to one of her concerts and she clomps around on stage like Herman Munster. So I see can perceive zero justification for the double standard and see every reason for consistently using normal English conventions. Greg L (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see Eminem referring to himself with the backwards E anywhere other than in his logo and he doesn't go out of his way to include the backwards E in print material like this. And as I pointed out in my last post, the Chicago style guides allow all lower case names, meaning "k.d. lang" is no more special in these regards, as she is included amongst people such as bell hooks, brian d foy, will.i.am, apl.de.ap, etc.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 01:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see can perceive zero justification for any double standards and see every reason for consistently using normal English conventions. And that means that if the majority of English-langauge RSs don’t use Japanese diacritics, then Wikipedia ought not either. English is English and it is not within the proper purview of mere wikipedians (I’m not suggesting that’s you by any means) to exploit Wikipedia as a tool in hopes of effecting change in how the English language is actually practiced. You seem to think using a non-conventional stylized “stage name” (along with Ke$ha and the many other “I am *special*” entertainers who are full of themselves) is encyclopedic. Just pardon me all over the place and allow me to disagree. M’kay? As I wrote above, K.D. Lang doesn’t write her signature like our article currently has it. When I saw that your response to that was a nonfalsifiable …does not seem to be a recent photograph or autograph by the woman, I realized it was pointless further trying to debate anything with you. Goodbye and happy editing. Greg L (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to use that autographed photograph to argue that k.d. lang capitalizes her name when she signs it? Because I certainly don't see it. The 'l' looks lower-case to me, and the 'd' is certainly not capitalized. The 'k' is disputable, but the difference between a capital 'K' and a lower-case 'k' are pretty minimal, and when examining handwriting, I just don't see your argument. -- Irn (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * [|Here], as all can see, she writes it “Kd Lang”, in which the first two letters are united, the last three are united, and it also it should be noted that she fudges the “n”. Look at it along with me: http://guaranteedautographs.com/laklisiaupop.html
 * The first letter is a K, uppercase. First, it’s very large compared to the rest of the signature.  Second, while the point where she starts the second stroke of the K isn’t exactly as high as the first, it’s pretty darn close.  And very close to the top points of the other top risers of the signature, those of the lowercase “d” and the “L”.  The second stroke of a lowercase “k” doesn’t start so high.
 * Definitely an uppercase “K”, but it’s unusual in that the second stroke ends up instead of down, and this is clearly because she’s going to begin her “d” with the same stroke.
 * She finishes the letter “d” with a separate stroke. As anyone can see, this is a lowercase “d”. “Kd”, the second stroke of which is the last stroke of a K and the first stroke of a “d”. Vertical stroke, finishthe”k”startthe”d”, vertical stroke, Kd.  No doubt at all.
 * Does she always sign her name this way?
 * Then it’s a uppercase “L”, but here you have to look closely and carefully to notice. But while the lowercase “l” is simply a vertical line, she clearly ends it with a horizontal bit.  It’s small but noticeable.  If you look very closely it actually turns up a bit at the very end.  Lowecase “l”s don’t have those.  Do you see it?
 * She does the last three letters in one stroke, fudging the letter “n” badly. She really didn’t write that letter clearly at all, so much so that without the context a person might not be able to read the word.
 * This signature obviously says “Kd Lang" http://guaranteedautographs.com/laklisiaupop.html. Chrisrus (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, she signs her name Kd Lang. Should we see a few more signatures before the final judgement?  How about how she types her name?  Is there a way to find more examples?  Chrisrus (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Support not using vanity decapitalisations, like we don't use vanity capitalisations. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 06:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support—As far as I'm aware, our guidelines permit the current form. However, there is a philosophy that to change the guidelines one ought to start at article talk pages in discussions like this and then change the guidelines to reflect what is happening on the articles themselves—I'd rather it was the other way around, but somewhere the logjam has to break. So I'll say here that I think style ought to be consistent across all of Wikipedia, and only things like the name itself and spelling should be determined by reliable sources. So we should use capitalization conventions on people's names, even if the people themselves and some RS don't. K. D. Lang is the result using that method, as far as I can tell. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. There are good reasons for not allowing vanity capitalisations, and these same reasons apply to decapitalisations. The guidelines should be changed if necessary to indicate this. Andrewa (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But we've allowed them for 5 years. Why is it only when it is suggested that all caps should be allowed that there's this kneejerk reaction to eliminate any stylizations?— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 04:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You give yourself too much credit. I think some have been opposed to this all along. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 09:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It started a few of days after I raised the issue. It's hard not to see the correlation.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 10:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

 * 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.

Requested move (Feb. 2012)

 * 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.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

K.d. lang → K.D. Lang – per MOS:TM --180.183.136.102 (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy close; we just rejected this. Powers T 14:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdraw agreed with Powers. Plus snowy close. ApprenticeFan  work 04:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.

New style guide discussion.
As a lot of other related edits have also been done, hold-off reverting until the concise points raised in the style guide are addressed, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Caps_.22Items_that_require_initial_lower_case.22_.28partially.29_scrap_or_edit.3F --Jimthing (talk) 07:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Libelous material
The article asserts that kd lang is homosexual, which is an unfounded rumor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.111.148 (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

 * It hasn't been a rumor for over two decades. See the following link: . -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  00:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

RFC
There is an RFC that may be of interest to the editors of this article Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks Gaijin42 (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Corporate identities
Search for K D Lang at VIAF shows hits 3 corporate identities (along with personals and works), briefly The Reclines, Siss Boom Bang, and Sing It Loud. Not sure I'll get back to it. --P64 (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Dropping everything?
Larry Wanagas who immediately dropped everything to become her personal manager - this expression seems to be a bit unfortunate and suggestive (just what would he have dropped?). Could a native speaker please insert a less colloquial phrase? Thank you. -- Zerolevel (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Zerolevel, good catch, did a copyedit. The Interior  (Talk) 18:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:K.d. lang/Archive 1


text:
Internet service provider

An Internet service provider (ISP) is an organization that provides myriad services related to accessing, using, managing, or participating in the Internet. ISPs can be organized in various forms, such as commercial, community-owned, non-profit, or otherwise privately owned.

Internet services typically provided by ISPs can include internet access, internet transit, domain name registration, web hosting, and colocation.

History
The Internet (originally ARPAnet) was developed as a network between government research laboratories and participating departments of universities. Other companies and organizations joined by direct connection to the backbone, or by arrangements through other connected companies, sometimes using dialup tools such as UUCP. By the late 1980s, a process was set in place towards public, commercial use of the Internet. Some restrictions were removed by 1991, shortly after the introduction of the World Wide Web.

During the 1980s, online service providers such as CompuServe, Prodigy, and America Online (AOL) began to offer limited capabilities to access the Internet, such as e-mail interchange, but full access to the Internet was not readily available to the general public.

In 1989, the first Internet service providers, companies offering the public direct access to the Internet for a monthly fee, were established in Australia and the United States. In Brookline, Massachusetts, The World became the first commercial ISP in the US. Its first customer was served in November 1989. These companies generally offered dial-up connections, using the public telephone network to provide last-mile connections to their customers. The barriers to entry for dial-up ISPs were low and many providers emerged.

However, cable television companies and the telephone carriers already had wired connections to their customers and could offer Internet connections at much higher speeds than dial-up using broadband technology such as cable modems and digital subscriber line (DSL). As a result, these companies often became the dominant ISPs in their service areas, and what was once a highly competitive ISP market became effectively a monopoly or duopoly in countries with a commercial telecommunications market, such as the United States.

In 1995, NSFNET was decommissioned removing the last restrictions on the use of the Internet to carry commercial traffic and network access points were created to allow peering arrangements between commercial ISPs.

Net neutrality
On 23 April 2014, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was reported to be considering a new rule permitting ISPs to offer content providers a faster track to send content, thus reversing their earlier net neutrality position. A possible solution to net neutrality concerns may be municipal broadband, according to Professor Susan Crawford, a legal and technology expert at Harvard Law School. On 15 May 2014, the FCC decided to consider two options regarding Internet services: first, permit fast and slow broadband lanes, thereby compromising net neutrality; and second, reclassify broadband as a telecommunication service, thereby preserving net neutrality. On 10 November 2014, President Barack Obama recommended that the FCC reclassify broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service in order to preserve net neutrality. On 16 January 2015, Republicans presented legislation, in the form of a U.S. Congress H.R. discussion draft bill, that makes concessions to net neutrality but prohibits the FCC from accomplishing the goal or enacting any further regulation affecting Internet service providers. On 31 January 2015, AP News reported that the FCC will present the notion of applying ("with some caveats") Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 to the Internet in a vote expected on 26 February 2015. Adoption of this notion would reclassify Internet service from one of information to one of the telecommunications and, according to Tom Wheeler, chairman of the FCC, ensure net neutrality. The FCC was expected to enforce net neutrality in its vote, according to The New York Times.

On 26 February 2015, the FCC ruled in favor of net neutrality by adopting Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 706 in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to the Internet. The FCC Chairman, Tom Wheeler, commented, "This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concept." On 12 March 2015, the FCC released the specific details of the net neutrality rules. On 13 April 2015, the FCC published the final rule on its new "Net Neutrality" regulations. These rules went into effect on 12 June 2015.

Upon becoming FCC chairman in April 2017, Ajit Pai proposed an end to net neutrality, awaiting votes from the commission. On 21 November 2017, Pai announced that a vote will be held by FCC members on 14 December 2017 on whether to repeal the policy. On 11 June 2018, the repeal of the FCC's network neutrality rules took effect.

Provisions for low-income families
Since December 31, 2021, The Affordable Connectivity Program has given households in the U.S. at or below 200% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines or households which meet a number of other criteria an up to $30 per month discount toward internet service, or up to $75 per month on certain tribal lands.

Access providers
Access provider ISPs provide Internet access, employing a range of technologies to connect users to their network. Available technologies have ranged from computer modems with acoustic couplers to telephone lines, to television cable (CATV), Wi-Fi, and fiber optics.

For users and small businesses, traditional options include copper wires to provide dial-up, DSL, typically asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL), cable modem or Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) (typically basic rate interface). Using fiber-optics to end users is called Fiber To The Home or similar names.

Customers with more demanding requirements (such as medium-to-large businesses, or other ISPs) can use higher-speed DSL (such as single-pair high-speed digital subscriber line), Ethernet, metropolitan Ethernet, gigabit Ethernet, Frame Relay, ISDN Primary Rate Interface, ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) and synchronous optical networking (SONET).

Wireless access is another option, including cellular and satellite Internet access. Access providers may have an MPLS (Multiprotocol label switching) or formerly a SONET backbone network, and have a ring or mesh network topology in their core network. The networks run by access providers can be considered wide area networks. ISPs can have access networks, aggregation networks/aggregation layers/distribution layers/edge routers/metro networks and a core network/backbone network; each subsequent network handles more traffic than the last. Mobile service providers also have similar networks.

Mailbox providers
A mailbox provider is an organization that provides services for hosting electronic mail domains with access to storage for mail boxes. It provides email servers to send, receive, accept, and store email for end users or other organizations.

Many mailbox providers are also access providers, while others are not (e.g., Gmail, Yahoo! Mail, Outlook.com, AOL Mail, Po box). The definition given in RFC 6650 covers email hosting services, as well as the relevant department of companies, universities, organizations, groups, and individuals that manage their mail servers themselves. The task is typically accomplished by implementing Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) and possibly providing access to messages through Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP), the Post Office Protocol, Webmail, or a proprietary protocol.

Hosting ISPs
Internet hosting services provide email, web-hosting, or online storage services. Other services include virtual server, cloud services, or physical server operation.

Transit ISPs
Just as their customers pay them for Internet access, ISPs themselves pay upstream ISPs for Internet access. An upstream ISP usually has a larger network than the contracting ISP or is able to provide the contracting ISP with access to parts of the Internet the contracting ISP by itself has no access to.

In the simplest case, a single connection is established to an upstream ISP and is used to transmit data to or from areas of the Internet beyond the home network; this mode of interconnection is often cascaded multiple times until reaching a tier 1 carrier. In reality, the situation is often more complex. ISPs with more than one point of presence (PoP) may have separate connections to an upstream ISP at multiple PoPs, or they may be customers of multiple upstream ISPs and may have connections to each one of them at one or more point of presence. Transit ISPs provide large amounts of bandwidth for connecting hosting ISPs and access ISPs.

Border Gateway Protocol is used by routers to connect to other networks. Tier 2 ISPs depend on Tier 1 ISPs and often have their own networks, but must pay for transit to Tier 1 ISPs, but may peer or send transit without paying to other Tier 2 ISPs. Tier 3 ISPs do not engage in peering and only purchase transit from Tier 2 and Tier 1 ISPs, and often specialize in offering internet service to end customers such as businesses and individuals. Some organizations act as their own ISPs and purchase transit directly from a Tier 1 ISP. Transit ISPs may use OTN (Optical transport network) or SDH/SONET (Synchronous Digital Hierarchy/Synchronous Optical Networking) with DWDM (Dense wavelength-division multiplexing) for transmitting data over optical fiber. For transmissions in a metro area such as a city and for large customers such as data centers, special pluggable modules in routers, conforming to standards such as CFP, QSFP-DD, OSFP, 400ZR or OpenZR+ may be used alongside DWDM and many vendors have proprietary offerings. Long-haul networks transport data across longer distances than metro networks, such as through submarine cables, or connecting several metropolitan networks. Optical line systems and packet optical transport systems can also be used for data transmission. Ultra long haul transmission transports data over distances of over 1500 kilometers.

Virtual ISPs
A virtual ISP (VISP) is an operation that purchases services from another ISP, sometimes called a wholesale ISP in this context, which allow the VISP's customers to access the Internet using services and infrastructure owned and operated by the wholesale ISP. VISPs resemble mobile virtual network operators and competitive local exchange carriers for voice communications.

Free ISPs
Free ISPs are Internet service providers that provide service free of charge. Many free ISPs display advertisements while the user is connected; like commercial television, in a sense they are selling the user's attention to the advertiser. Other free ISPs, sometimes called freenets, are run on a nonprofit basis, usually with volunteer staff.

Wireless ISP
A wireless Internet service provider (WISP) is an Internet service provider with a network based on wireless networking. Technology may include commonplace Wi-Fi wireless mesh networking, or proprietary equipment designed to operate over open 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz, 4.9, 5.2, 5.4, 5.7, and 5.8 GHz bands or licensed frequencies such as 2.5 GHz (EBS/BRS), 3.65 GHz (NN) and in the UHF band (including the MMDS frequency band) and LMDS.

ISPs in rural regions
It is hypothesized that the vast divide between broadband connection in rural and urban areas is partially caused by a lack of competition between ISPs in rural areas, where there exists a market typically controlled by just one provider. A lack of competition problematically causes subscription rates to rise disproportionately with the quality of service in rural areas, causing broadband connection to be unaffordable for some, even when the infrastructure supports service in a given area.

In contrast, consumers in urban areas typically benefit from lower rates and higher quality of broadband services, not only due to more advanced infrastructure but also the healthy economic competition caused by having several ISPs in a given area. How the difference in competition levels has potentially negatively affected the innovation and development of infrastructure in specific rural areas remains a question. The exploration and answers developed to the question could provide guidance for possible interventions and solutions meant to remedy the digital divide between rural and urban connectivity.

Altnets
Altnets (portmanteau of "alternative network provider") are localized broadband networks, typically formed as an alternative to monopolistic internet service providers within a region.

Peering
ISPs may engage in peering, where multiple ISPs interconnect at peering points or Internet exchange points (IXPs), allowing routing of data between each network, without charging one another for the data transmitted—data that would otherwise have passed through a third upstream ISP, incurring charges from the upstream ISP.

ISPs requiring no upstream and having only customers (end customers or peer ISPs) are called Tier 1 ISPs.

Network hardware, software and specifications, as well as the expertise of network management personnel are important in ensuring that data follows the most efficient route, and upstream connections work reliably. A tradeoff between cost and efficiency is possible.

Tier 1 ISPs are also interconnected with a mesh network topology. Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are public locations where several networks are connected to each other. Public peering is done at IXPs, while private peering can be done with direct links between networks.

Law enforcement and intelligence assistance
Internet service providers in many countries are legally required (e.g., via Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) in the U.S.) to allow law enforcement agencies to monitor some or all of the information transmitted by the ISP, or even store the browsing history of users to allow government access if needed (e.g. via the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 in the United Kingdom). Furthermore, in some countries ISPs are subject to monitoring by intelligence agencies. In the U.S., a controversial National Security Agency program known as PRISM provides for broad monitoring of Internet users traffic and has raised concerns about potential violation of the privacy protections in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Modern ISPs integrate a wide array of surveillance and packet sniffing equipment into their networks, which then feeds the data to law-enforcement/intelligence networks (such as DCSNet in the United States, or SORM in Russia) allowing monitoring of Internet traffic in real time.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Internet service provider