Jump to content

Talk:Blackfriars Massacre

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

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

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

[edit]
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: no consensus, given the apparent attempts at "vote stacking." Harej (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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]

See the relevant SPI. These are sockpuppets. RGloucester — ☎ 17:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: This is the relevant spi: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dicklyon. It was closed with no action taken. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Editor note: Incorrect. The above person is a partisan in these matters and fails to see the obvious truth that these are sock puppets. Nothing is closed, and action will be taken. RGloucester — ☎ 17:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That particular SPI is in fact closed. Is there another that participants/etc of this RM should be aware of? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't closed. The corruption WILL be rooted out. RGloucester — ☎ 17:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a note to the closer and other move participants, Dicklyon has in fact been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Take the below IPs with more than a grain of salt. RGloucester — ☎ 19:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The distinction is whether it is sufficiently evolved to be recognised as a proper name or whether it is more correctly described as an attributive noun (Blackfriars) modifying the appellative noun (massacre). To be a proper name, there should be either an 'official' naming or there should be widespread use. I see no source by which it is officially named. There is fairly limited reference to it in sources (not widespread) and it is not consistently capitalised. Consistent is to be without [significant] variation. The usage identified herein does not satisfy this standard. Certainly 50/50 is not 'consistently', as some appear to be arguing. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confusing the specific concept of proper name with the general idea of a name that can be called proper. For example: say my name is William Wallace. You come up to me one day and say, "Hey Billy, how's it going?" I say, "Fine, but my name is William; I don't go by Billy." In that case you could call Billy "improper" since it's not my preferred name. But both William Wallace and Billy Wallace are proper names which refer to me. --BDD (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not confusing anything. Please see [2]. This reference discusses how noun phrases come to be considered proper names. In short, there is either a 'christening' or there is an evolution, so that in widespread usage, the noun phrase is accepted as a proper name. The act of 'christening' must be done by a person or body that has the accepted authority to do so. It is accepted that I could name my children, my dog or my house but if I named the bridge down the road, this would not generally be recognised. Similarly, if I capitalise a noun phrase, such as 'Blacfriars Massacre', it does not mean that the rest of the world must now conform to this. Just because it is a specific event, it is not automatically a proper name. 'John Smith's funeral' is a specific event but we do not capitalise 'funeral'. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder why the above users say such things as "if the sources say so". The sources provided in this discussion do capitalise "massacre", so their arguments have no ground to stand on. RGloucester — ☎ 19:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's a proper noun since it refers to a discreet event, and we should rely on external sources for content, not style decisions. --BDD (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2015 (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.

Page move history

[edit]

— Sigh. wbm1058 (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, indeed. But it ended up in a good place, consistent with its references. Dicklyon (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, no - a title that disregards an existing RM is not in a good place. wbm1058, please revert your move as requested on your talk page. We had an RM on the subject here, which had an outcome. Anyone is free at any time to try another RM if they feel they can be more convincing, but we should not just override the community's decisions. Dohn joe (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you addressing that to? And the previous result, "no consensus", didn't establish a preference for one version or the other. Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After finding this article in my recently-created Category:Articles with talk page redirects, I just moved the talk page. 16 months have passed since DagosNavy moved the article page on 29 January 2019, and nobody seems to have noticed until I came along and re-synced the talk page. DagosNavy seems to only have short-term memory which expires after a year or two. They were reverted in December 2015 and advised to see RM on talkpage. They self-reverted in January 2017 claiming to be unaware of RM on talk page after receiving notice on their talk page. And here we are again, after they made a third bold move of this page in January 2019. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I usually make 300-400 edits per month in WP, so it's easy for me to forget minor edit disputes like this one. I was advised of the RM after the discussion has been closed. I got it (possibly) wrong; I thought, since "no consensus" was reached, that two years were enough to challenge the outcome, since it "didn't establish a preference" as Dicklyon stress. My only fault was not to bring the latest change to the talk page, asking for a new RM, I acknowledge that. (I haven't taken part in the 2015 discussion, BTW).---Darius (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move review

[edit]

I'm not finding clear guidance on this matter in the policies and guidelines. A Manual of Style discussion on over-capitalization of events, movements, etc. does not seem to have reached any consensus. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal was discussed as part of a December 2014 multi-move request, where it was found that different issues pertain to different pages. Since there is no broad-based consensus on the matter of capitalization of the names of "massacre-related" events, these are considered on a case-by-case basis. Most, but not all of the items in that RM have since been moved to titles with lowercase. I'm not taking time to assess how many of those moved via discussions forming a consensus or via the tendentious repetition I see here, until one stuck.

The nominator's assertion Per normal title style, use sentence case for title. None of the sources capitalize this. is clearly not true. Sources are mixed; some capitalize "Massacre" while others do not. "Per normal title style" strikes me more as a political statement rather than a reference to any guideline.

The lead of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters does state that Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. However, In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names... The locus of the debate is whether "Blackfriars Massacre" is a proper name or not. If it is, we capitalize; if it isn't, we don't.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters also says only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. This has changed since the date of the RM; on 17 April 2015 it just said words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia.

I respect Dohn joe's good-faith efforts at counting sources, and note that they offered Weak support for moving to lower case. So I'll take their request to move back to upper case as a legitimate procedural objection. I tried checking Google Ngrams, but it was no help. Noting that about a 50-50 split in sources may have been sufficient to pass the bar back in 2015, but that seems insufficient under the higher bar "substantial majority" set by the current MOS.

Counting !votes of those who've participated on this page in the 2015 RM discussion or more recently:

58% is really borderline for reaching the level of consensus. Despite that I'm inclined to invoke a smidge of "IAR" and let DagosNavy's January 2019 move slide on the view that the "lower-case" side has the stronger argument based on contemporary ("substantial majority" of independent, reliable sources) guidance. But don't take that as an endorsement of the behavior of failing to check for prior discussions before moving the page. It's not; I do not endorse such overly casually-executed moves.

However, my view is that rules should only be ignored when there is a consensus to do so, and if not my strict interpretation is that WP:TITLECHANGES applies and with that we must default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub, i.e. revert to the stable title of December 2008 – December 2014.

If after reading my review analysis, any editor still objects to letting this move slide, just say so here and I will move it back. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I very much appreciate the thoughtful analysis from wbm1058, I think I still have to object. It's pretty clear from WP:RM#CM that we really shouldn't move pages after an RM: "The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies: * there has been any past debate about the best title for the page; * someone could reasonably disagree with the move." Consensus can change, so further RMs are fine, but just waiting until people stop paying attention is a recipe for gamesmanship. Let's err on the side of respecting previous discussions. Dohn joe (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – thanks for taking time to review and consider my analysis. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you. I do think that for a project like this to keep succeeding, you have to do the little things right. (We can disagree on what that means, of course, too!) Dohn joe (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Fall 2024 HIST 401

[edit]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2024 and 19 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Haydenjm.

— Assignment last updated by Clairethursby80 (talk) 02:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blackfriars_Massacre&oldid=1251786209"