Jump to content

Talk:Blackfriars Massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 173.160.224.84 (talk) at 16:00, 16 April 2015 (→Requested move 9 April 2015). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Watts Riots which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 April 2015

Blackfriars Massacre → Blackfriars massacre – Per normal title style, use sentence case for title. None of the sources capitalize this. Dicklyon (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right that nothing has changed, but since nobody commented on this one in the RM discussion that you link, it's hard to say. Still no cited source capitalizes it, but you can add one that does if you like. Dicklyon (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the objections of those to proposed moves provide much elucidation. You are wrong to say that "nobody commented", as there are many that commented, and they commented on all the proposed moves including this one. RGloucester — ☎ 02:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody commented on the capitalization of Blackfriars Massacre. Most of the rest of have been fixed already, in spite of your interference. Dicklyon (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When they commented on the RM, they were commenting on all the proposed moves. I supported many of those moves, and I disagreed with many of them. That's irrelevant. I do not support this one. RGloucester — ☎ 02:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: By the way, Mr Lyon, why have you not pinged all of the editors that participated there, as required by the closer of that discussion? Please get on with it. RGloucester — ☎ 02:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That turned out to be practically impossible, technically, as well as objected to by several as oddly out of normal processes. But I won't object if you want to give it a try. Dicklyon (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are required to notify those editors. If you cannot do it via ping, do it via a talk page message. Please abide by the closer's determination. RGloucester — ☎ 03:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support, Dohn. But I don't understand the hesitation. If you think the sources are near 50/50, then the recommendation of MOS:CAPS to avoid unnecessary capitalization seems clear. Also, if you actually follow those book links, you only find one with uppercase, as far as I can tell (the one that RG already mentioned); definitely more books use lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I only found five books where I could look inside - 3 used "M" and 2 used "m". In addition to the two cited by RG, there's also this. Plain Google searches are almost impossible to use for this purpose other than to get a general sense of things. My hesitation is that the ratio could well be 2:1 in favor of uppercase, which would probably cause me to oppose. But based on what I've seen, it's not quite to that level. It seems likely to be 60-40 one way or the other, which is not consistent enough to qualify under MOS:CAPS. Dohn joe (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to whom is it "not consistent enough to qualify under MOS:CAPS"? We use what's most common. I'd like to let you know of my findings elsewhere, tracing the origins of the "consistent" phrasing to a no-consensus edit to the MoS by Dicklyon, which previously specified following "common usage". The system has been rigged. RGloucester — ☎ 13:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dohn, if you can show we what 3 books you found with caps, I'd appreciate it. I can only find two so far. Dicklyon (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"50/50" support obviously indicates consistent capitalisation in RS. In such cases, per WP:TITLECHANGES, there is clearly no justification for a move away from the title the article has maintained since its inception. RGloucester — ☎ 02:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By any normal interpretation, that's called "inconsistent capitalization". Dicklyon (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is consistently capitalized in roughly half of the available sources. That's consistent, and supported by WP:UCN. It is also more natural for the reader, fulfilling another article title criteria. Please note that WP:NAMECAPS specifies that "Proper names of specific places, persons, terms, etc. are capitalized in accordance with standard usage". This is a specific event, and should be capitalised per the MoS. RGloucester — ☎ 03:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC) RGloucester — ☎ 03:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If by "roughly half" you mean 1 book. Or can you point us to another besides the one you linked above? Dicklyon (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to two books and one scholarly review, along with reliable news sources that capitalise it in running text. RGloucester — ☎ 03:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so you did – 2 books then; still fewer than half. I missed that second one with capitalized Massacre on the back dust cover publicity blurb. I stand corrected and apologize for the oversight. Dicklyon (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as the name seems acceptable per sources (Dicklyon, maybe you should change your intro as sources have now been provided). 50-50 is fine, thus making this an appropriate and popular name. Sometimes a massacre is just a cigar, but sometimes it's a Massacre. The near-100 percent consistency guideline was put into the MOS in the middle of a wall-of-text discussion, and has been used ever since as gospel when it's just a guideline for questionable articles. The Blackfriar's Massacre seems to be an accepted name, and thus rates the capital 'M'. (and yes, I think that pings are required per the discussion at Watts riot, and since I'm kind of new to this game I don't know why pings shouldn't be the usual practice). Randy Kryn 3:10 9 April, 2015 (UTC)
Of course it's "acceptable". But it's not Wikipedia's style, per MOS:CAPS. So why not adjust it? Dicklyon (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is Wikipedia style. I'm now aware of who's style you're referring to, and it isn't the style of "Wikipedia". RGloucester — ☎ 03:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just going to ignore the books, then? Dicklyon (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is more commonly capitalised in RS, as shown above. RGloucester — ☎ 19:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, we go by sources. Consider other examples: Category:Massacres_in_the_United_States. Dicklyon (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily, the majority of sources capitalise "Blackfriars Massacre". RGloucester — ☎ 00:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
People keeping saying that, but I'm not seeing it. Certainly not so in books. Dicklyon (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—I have no idea why this is being contested. It's an open-and-shut case if we find 50–50 up and downcase in sources. If you don't agree with that, please go to MOSCAPS and push for a change. Tony (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, if caps are most common in sources, as they are here, we use them. What's more, per WP:TITLECHANGES, controversial changes of this nature bring little benefit to the encylopaedia, and should be avoided. There is no justification for a change. RGloucester — ☎ 13:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please show your evidence that there is a clear majority in sources using uppercase? As I said above, I have trouble stating that there is anything more than a 50-50 split. There may be - but could you show me why you think so? Dohn joe (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did so above. Even a 50-50 split would necessitate maintaining the current title, per WP:TITLECHANGES. RGloucester — ☎ 16:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, above, you showed five sources that use uppercase. How do we know there aren't more that are lowercase? You didn't show any of those, or give us any searches where you got your information from. Dohn joe (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And at least one of those "reliable sources" ([1]) is a mirror of our John A. Kelly article content. Most capitalized web sources are mirrors of the one Boston Globe article (which is itself recent enough that it was almost certainly influenced by Wikipedia's capitalized styling), or of various Wikipedia articles directly. Counting copies is easy, but useless. Books are better to see what serious writers and editors do. Dicklyon (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blackfriars_Massacre&oldid=656771547"