Talk:You Can Count on Me

Requested move 30 December 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. Primary topic questions can be addressed with a new RM if required. Jenks24 (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I understand MOS:CT correctly, this title falls into the "Words that have the same form as prepositions, but are not being used specifically as prepositions" as "count on" is a phrasal verb. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to You Can Count on Me (film) - there is no primary topic here ; and "on" is a preposition in the sentence, same as lean on the wall, rely on me, count on me. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- count on is a phrasal verb, as well as all the examples you gave.[1][2] Also, nothing at You Can Count on Me (disambiguation) indicates a similar primary topic to assert "there is no primary topic here", just a song notable for being performed at Eurovision, and a song notable for its B-side which a music blog ranked as one of the "Best Songs of 2010". This film, on the other hand, received multiple awards, and was nominated to 2 Oscars[3], so if you don't think it is primary, you need evidence. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 19:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. See Take On Me and Cum On Feel the Noize as other examples. Unreal7 (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support capitalization of "Count On", per MOS:CT, due to its apparent usage here as a phrasal verb. I don't currently have a strong opinion about the PRIMARYTOPIC question posed by IIO (which is a separate matter from what was raised by the nominator here), but I'm leaning toward Tbhotch's view on that due to the Oscar nominations, etc. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on You Can Count On Me. 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.archive.org/web/20101009122532/http://www.nbtbank.com/pdfs/NBTBank150Years.pdf to http://www.nbtbank.com/pdfs/NBTBank150Years.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 March 2022

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: page moved. Near unanimous consensus on the grammar, other titles may be moved following subsequent discussions. (non-admin closure) SportingFlyer T·C 00:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You Can Count On Me → You Can Count on Me – film itself uses a lowercase "on" in the title card Goldenimam (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I processed this thinking it was fairly uncontroversial, but forgot to check the talk page. Because there was a previous move discussion settling on the current capitalization, we may need another discussion to override that. I reverted my changes for now. ASUKITE 16:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ per MOS:CT and the prior RM. "Count On" is a phrasal verb, and we still have Take On Me and Cum On Feel the Noize. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Strikethrough above, as I think I'm out of my grammatical depth here. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BarrelProof. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MOS:CT. Prepositions are always lowercase in title case, and "on" is a preposition in "You Can Count on Me". The term "phrasal verb" is unfortunately ambiguous, cf. the corresponding Wikipedia article. The section in MOS:CT about phrasal verbs refers to particle verbs (see footnote [e] on the MOS:CT page), e.g. "give in" or "think over". "in" and "over" are adverb particles in these examples, not prepositions. This is different from prepositional verbs like "pick on", "pass for" or "count on". Here "for" resp. "on" are prepositions, so they need to be lowercased in titles. Darkday (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Darkday.: "on me" is a prepositional phrase if ever there was one. Plus both Rotten Tomatos and IMDb use the proposed title (with lowercase "on"; you have to do a search in Rotten Tomatos to see it). Dicklyon (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This RM hinges entirely on whether "count on" is a verb + particle or verb + preposition construction. Under the MOS, the former construction demands "on" to be capitalized while the latter demands no capitalization. We can set up a test suggested by information here, which is explicitly linked in the MOS. Comparing "count on" (to mean "rely on") with the "take on" suggested earlier: if "on" is a particle, it will allow the phrasal verb object to be either before or after it. I could take on a guy or take the guy on (particle phrasal), but I can only count on (i.e. rely on) the guy to do something ("counting the guy on" being either ungrammatical or, if used as a variant of "count one in", meaning something else entirely), implying that "count on" is not a verb + particle construction and thus should not be subject to the associated capitalization. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Mellohi!'s analysis is correct; this is a verb + preposition construction, not a verb + particle, so use lower case. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So should all of the following be moved?: Can I Count On You, Count On Me, Count On Me (album), Count On Me (Bruno Mars song), Count On Me (Chase & Status song), Count On Me (EP), Count On Me (Jefferson Starship song), Count On Me (Judah Kelly song), Count On Me (The Statler Brothers song), Count On Me (Whitney Houston and CeCe Winans song), Count On Me Singapore, Count On My Love (disambiguation), Count On My Love, Count On the Saint, You Can Count On Me (disambiguation), You Can Count On Me (Panda Bear song), You Can't Count On Me. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is all the same case. Darkday (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And Take On Me and Cum On Feel the Noize? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.