[1] [2]

You have recently edited a page related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Cinderella157 (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you initially posted this at ANI (here) as part of an ANI involving me. You would say: Cinderella157 hasn't technically broken any policy here, but I do think they went against the spirit of CONLEVEL and CENT. Quite arguably, editing against the spirit of P&G is more serious than breaking P&G on a good faith error or omission. It could reasonably fall to WP:GAMING or WP:TENDENTIOUS. Regardless, it is an allegation of misconduct. I think that you have now been made aware that the RfC template makes notifications to various places, depending on the options selected and I selected three. I also specifically notified MilHist. Where you stated that the only project they notified was MILHIST, the inference is this was the only notification made. I think you would now realise that this is incorrect to the point of being false. You only name me in this - ignoring this RfC, which would also go against the spirit of CONLEVEL and CENT according to your post. You would allege by inference that I am not sufficiently trustworthy to edit P&G. If there were any substance to this, it would be pretty serious and cause for sanction. Without substance, it is clearly a personal attack. I trust from the comments you have received that you understand that there is no substance to these allegations.

I suggest that the appropriate thing to do would be to acknowledge at each place that your post was ill-conceived such as by striking in combination with an appropriate edit summary or similar.

When I first started editing, I held similar views to you (and others) regarding capitalisation and found myself at odds with the MOS. My perceptions were challenged. It was through reading and expanding my knowledge on the subject that I realised that the simplified perception of proper names was adequate in many instances but insufficient for the instances for the many grey areas. It is inadequate where our writing is scrutinised, such as on WP. That is the message in the Suzanne Arnold article. If you haven't read it, you might read User talk:Cinderella157#On what is a proper name. It is a collation of some comments I have made on the topic. It may not change you mind but it should challenge your perceptions. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinderella157 Regardless, it is an allegation of misconduct.

It was meant as an opinion. I did not ask or !vote for any sanctions.

Where you stated that the only project they notified was MILHIST, the inference is this was the only notification made. I think you would now realise that this is incorrect to the point of being false.

True, the RfC template does notify projects and I completely overlooked the heading. That is my mistake.

That is the message in the Suzanne Arnold article. If you haven't read it

As my comment here shows, I did read the essay, and even directly quoted it.

I have edited the part about you and I apologise if it made you feel wrongly accused. I hope this doesn't impact our collaboration in the future as we do cross paths from time to time. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was meant as an opinion. It reasonably reads as an allegation.

As my comment here shows, I did read the essay, and even directly quoted it. A reasonable misunderstanding of what I meant to say. Please read the two sentences as two totally different ideas - ie {{If you haven't read it, you might read User talk:Cinderella157#On what is a proper name}} - ie Please read User talk:Cinderella157#On what is a proper name if you have not already done so. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it, and while in some rare cases one can cast doubt on what is or isn't a proper name, I disagree that it is such a problem to identify them.

For example, here "we conventionally capitalise the names of businesses and institution such as London's Natural History Museum, even though such names are often descriptive." you seem to suggest that Natural History Museum is not a proper name, but it is, they capitalise it themselves. "London's" is a possessive noun and is not a part of the name, that part is a description of where the museum is located.

This "Many people base their perception of what is a proper name on an incomplete definition and a perception that specificity of referent is a defining property when it is not." makes me think that you are arguing from a philosphical point of view, as in the article proper name (philosophy), but the proper name article reads quite clear to me:

Few proper names have only one possible referent: there are many places named New Haven; Jupiter may refer to a planet, a god, a ship, a city in Florida, or as part of the name of a symphony ("the Jupiter Symphony"); at least one person has been named Mata Hari, as well as a racehorse, several songs, several films, and other objects; there are towns and people named Toyota, as well as the company. In English, proper names in their primary application cannot normally be modified by articles or another determiner, although some may be taken to include the article the, as in the Netherlands, the Roaring Forties, or the Rolling Stones. A proper name may appear to have a descriptive meaning, even though it does not (the Rolling Stones are not stones and do not roll; a woman named Rose is not a flower). If it once had a descriptive meaning, it may no longer be descriptive; a location previously referred to as "the new town" may now have the proper name Newtown though it is no longer new and is now a city rather than a town. (emphasis mine)

You say "Per the RM, specificity of referent can also occur through the use if the definite article (the)." but proper names seems pretty clear on that too: proper names in their primary application cannot normally be modified by articles or another determiner. So if you have to modify it with a the to make it into a specific referent, then it isn't a proper name. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where you would question:

For example, here "we conventionally capitalise the names of businesses and institution such as London's Natural History Museum, even though such names are often descriptive." you seem to suggest that Natural History Museum is not a proper name, but it is ...

I had stated more fully:

What is a proper name is something generally poorly understood since many rely on the simplistic definition. A true proper name is not descriptive and unfortunately, people are inclined to categorise all of the things that are conventionally capitalised in English as proper names. For example, we conventionally capitalise the names of businesses and institution such as London's Natural History Museum, even though such names are often descriptive. [emphasis added]

I recently posted: As an educator I understand that a simple conceptual framework can facilitate an understanding at a basic level but a simplistic framework can be a barrier to achieving a more advanced understanding. The problem is that Mrs McGillicuddy is held up as a demi-god and her teachings divine. To question her teachings is heresy. I am not saying that this should not be capitalised. What I am saying is that not everything that might be capitalised in English is necessarily a proper noun. Grouping everything that we should capitalise in English togeather and labeling them all as proper nouns is a simplistic framework that becomes a barrier to achieving a more advanced understanding. We capitalise businesses and instutions because that is the rule in English. The same goes for titles of works. We don't need to call these things proper nouns to justify their capitalisation. Calling them proper nouns can be problematic because they are often descriptive and proper nouns are not descriptive. One of the problems I find with the article proper name is that it follows the same course of lumping everything together under the same heading.

You would question:

This "Many people base their perception of what is a proper name on an incomplete definition and a perception that specificity of referent is a defining property when it is not." makes me think that you are arguing from a philosphical point of view, as in the article proper name (philosophy), but the proper name article reads quite clear to me

The pertinant part of the quote you take from proper noun is:

A proper name may appear to have a descriptive meaning, even though it does not (the Rolling Stones are not stones and do not roll; a woman named Rose is not a flower).

The Rolling stones may be a bunch of stoned rockers but they are certainly not small boulders tumbling down a hill. While Rose might be a sweet smelling thorny woman, she is not a plant. Magellan named the Pacific after having made a stormy passage through the Straits of Magellan because the Ocean he entered was quite tranquil. On another day with worse luck he might have called it the Bellicus Ocean. If he were vain, he might have called it the Magellan Ocean. It is not always peaceful. The etymology of a proper noun may appear to be descriptive but it does not mean the proper name with that etymology is actually descriptive. On the other hand, the French Revolution was a particular revolution in France. We know that it is a particular revolution because of the definite article. The name is inherently descriptive and not a true proper name. It is capitalised for its importance. We would do so on WP because it is done with near universal consistency in sources. The B|battle of Waterloo is also inherently descriptive. Contexturalising for prose, the ngram shows about equal capitalisation here and google scholar certainly shows it is not consistenly capped here. There is a good case for not capping it on WP.

You and I are both referring to Proper noun, which discusses the "semantics" of proper nouns. A proper name is not descriptive but an arbitrary label. It would be SMcC's propsition (at WP:PNPN) that the semantics of a proper name fall to proper name (philosophy) and I would disagree with the distinction it makes but I agree with the conclusion - WP uses evidence rather than a definition to determine what we capitalise. [For the most part] there is nothing about a proper name that tells or describes the referent. We do not know from the name alone that Everest is a mountain (or a person) or the Nile is a river (also see Nile (disambiguation)). Georgia might be a person or place. We might assume that Sue is a girl since personal names tend to be gender specific but beyond that, we know nothing at all about Sue. And then, they could always be a boy named Sue. If you read proper name (philosophy), you will see it is about how arbitrary names have "meaning": how we know that the Nile is dirty big long river in north Africa full of things that want to kill you and Everest is a bloody great mountain between China and Nepal covered in snow and ice. This directly relates to logic as a branch of philosophy.

To your third question:

Yes, you have got that almost right. Some proper names do take the definite article - eg the Thames, the Pacific or the Andes. These are not descriptive but do take the definite article. Proper name would call these weak proper names. As an aside, the capitalisation of descriptors in geographical names is something of a special case since the capitalisation appears to be more a matter of transferring cartographic conventions to prose. The R|riot in Brisbane, The B|battle of Waterloo, the French R|revolution, the Syrian civil war etc are all descriptive phrases that take the definite article in prose and all have a specific referent intrinsically linked to using the definite article. These are certainly not what we would call a true proper noun. To paraphrase what you have said: So if, if it is descriptive and it is modifide with a 'the' to make it have a specific referent, then it isn't a "true" proper name. The counterpoint is that we do see some of these terms near universally capitalised in sources and WP would capitalise these even though they are not true proper names. Such terms (eg French Revolution) can be described as capitalisation for importance or significance where the significance and importance is near universally acknowledged.

While I have added a deal of additional detail here, for the most part, my answers are in what I have already written. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. labeling them all as proper nouns is a simplistic framework that becomes a barrier to achieving a more advanced understanding.

   Therein lies the problem. I believe we should rely on a simplistic framework. We shouldn't expect editors to be experts in lingustics to be able to determine whether something should be capitalised or not. In the same vein, I do not think that move/rename discussions should be turned into philosophical debates.

2. Calling them proper nouns can be problematic because they are often descriptive and proper nouns are not descriptive.

   If the word originated as a desciption and then turned into a proper noun during use, we cannot say that it is not a proper noun because of its etymology. Language is a living thing, it is constantly changing. Take for example New York's nickname, The Big Apple. That is a proper noun that began as a description. New York isn't actually a big apple, but it was described as such because musicians considered playing in New York as a big deal, it was a big gig, the big apple. The name stuck and now it is "The Big Apple".

3. Such terms (eg French Revolution) can be described as capitalisation for importance or significance where the significance and importance is near universally acknowledged.

   There are also proper adjectives which can also be descriptive, and they should also be capitalised.[1] e.g. "French Revolution", the "French" is a proper adjective, it describes the nature or the location of that particular revolution. Yet we can refer to "French Revolution" as a proper name. So French Revolution isn't capitalised for emphasis, it is capitalised because it is a proper name.

   The SEP seems to agree:

   The Cambridge Grammar of English distinguishes the syntactic category of proper name from that of proper noun (Payne & Huddleston 2002: 516). A proper noun is a word-level unit of the category noun, while a proper name is a type of noun phrase. So, for example, the proper name “Alice Walker” consists of two proper nouns: “Alice” and “Walker”. A proper name (the noun phrase) may also—and often does—consist of a single proper noun, just as a verb phrase may consist of a lone verb. Hence, the sentence “Alice sleeps” is comprised of a noun phrase/proper name and a verb phrase; the noun phrase contains a single proper noun, and the verb phrase consists of a lone verb. Its analysis into syntactic constituents would look like this:

   [_S[_PName[_PNounAlice]][_VP[_Vsleeps]]]

   Proper names may contain other parts of speech, too: “Brooklyn Bridge” places the common noun “Bridge” alongside the proper noun “Brooklyn”. “The Raritan River” includes the determiner “the”. “The Bronx” combines a determiner and a proper noun. Finally, “the Golden Gate Bridge” is a proper name with no proper nouns in it at all.

   I think you are introducing unnecessary complications into a topic that doesn't seem to be that controversial anywhere else except in philosophy of language, and it is the philosophers' job to argue about everything.

4. The name is inherently descriptive and not a true proper name.

   I looked up "true proper name" on Google Scholar and there wasn't many results, pretty much just What is in a Name?: An Inquiry into the Semantics and Pragmatics of Proper Names.

5. Proper name would call these weak proper names.

   This is what it says: "The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language terms these weak proper names, in contrast with the more typical strong proper names, which are normally used without an article." Searching Google Scholar for "weak proper name" yields the following (among others): [2] [3] [4] [5] This further shows that this is a topic for linguistic journals and philosophical debates, it makes no sense to have these kinds of arguments on Wikipedia. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 09:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reponding to your comments as numbered:

1. I made a distinction between simple and simplistic. Where you would say, I believe we should rely on a simplistic framework, I would say simple, given that distinction. MOS:CAPS gives simple general advice: if it is not consistently capped in sources, we don't cap it on WP. The simplistic perception that a proper name is [any] name (noun phrase) that identifies a particular person, place or [any] thing (where the square brackets would indicate perception), works for things like John Smith, London or Missouri (the ship) - noting that none of these are descriptive or include descriptors (eg bridge, revolution etc). None of the disagreements on WP about caps fall to such simple cases. The simplistic rule does not address whether descriptors are part of the proper name or whether a proper name is modifying a descriptor (or being modified by a descriptor). There is a simplistic assumption that the only things English might capitalise is a proper name when clearly, it is done for other things that are terms of art etc. There is a simplistic rationalisation that a name phase for anything that can be said be a specific thing is a proper name - even to the point that any "thing" [must have] has a proper name. In cognitive development, proper names are assimilated as concrete 'things" eg John Smith, London or Missouri (the ship) are concrete. Other things such as gods are personified and perceived as concrete. It is a truism (a simple rule) that proper names are always capitalised and nobody disputes this. If a noun phrase is far from always capitalised in sources (more than can be accounted for by simple error, then there is clearly something more to this than what can be explained by the simplistic rule of what a proper noun is.
2. Yes, English evolves. Words pass in both directions (eg RADAR as an acronym). But WP follows, it does not lead. We don't say, this looks like it may come to be consistently capped in sources so we will just help it along. WP is not a crystal ball. My point about etymology was to not conflate anything descriptive in the etymology with a proper name not being descriptive. The Big Apple is not an apple that is big.
3. One could argue the semantics of a proper adjective (the adjectival form of a proper name) or a proper name being used attributively (ie a proper name modifying another noun like an adjective does). Either way, it does not follow that a noun phase that includes a proper noun being used attributively ipso facto makes the noun phrase a proper name. I touched upon this in the first point. It is a common misperception that, if part of a noun phrase is usually capitalised, then all major parts of it should be capitalised (use title case). Many geographical names end with a descriptor ie Golden Gate Bridge is a bridge and Golden Gate Strait is a strait. For some geographical names, using a descriptor is optional (eg I sailed through Golden Gate into San Francisco Bay), though if one drops the descriptor, it is usual to use the definite article. There is no simple rule to tell us which descriptors to cap and when. A simplistic rule would have many inconsistencies compared with actual usage. Rules in English are noted for having near as many exceptions as they do compliance.
   The quote from SEP (the Golden Gate Bridge” is a proper name with no proper nouns in it at all) reminds me a lot of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, where practictioners working with an inadequate theory or paradigm (eg the Geocentric model of Ptolemaic astronomy) persist in trying to force empirical evidence to conform to such a paradigm like a square peg to a round hole. I suggest it is more appropriate to rationalise the name phrase Golden Gate B|bridge as a proper name (Golden Gate - there is no actual gate that is golden) modifying a descriptor (B|bridge) that may or may not be capitalised consistently depending how important it is percieved and capitalised in sources. In this case it is capitalised with consistently[6] but this is not always the case for bridges (eg the Öland Bridge,[7] the Rochefort-Martrou Transporter Bridge,[8] or the Garabit viaduct[9] - where viaduct is a type of bridge).
   Trying to rationalise everything that should be capitalised on WP (and English more generally) on the premise that capitalisation is only used for proper names is a bit too much like a model of astronomy premised upon the earth being the centre of the universe.
4. Google scholar nonetheless has hits. true proper name is a term of art used herein to describe proper names which are not descriptive compared with names that are in full or part descriptive of the referent but which are consistently capitalised in sources or which some would assert to be a proper name even when they are not consistently capped in sources. There is nothing wrong with using true proper name as a term of art in the context of this discussion.
5. You stated earlier: So if you have to modify it with a the to make it into a specific referent, then it isn't a proper name. I responded Yes, you have got that almost right. Some proper names do take the definite article - eg the Thames, the Pacific or the Andes. These are not descriptive but do take the definite article. Proper name would call these weak proper names. This was an explanation as to why your statement was incorrect. Perhaps more simply, if a noun phrase is inherently descriptive and specific because of the definite article (the) it is not a proper name and it is probable (likely) that it will not be capitalised consistently in sources - eg our solar system or the galactic centre of our universe. Before you come back to argue the point, have a look at the ngrams here, here and here. Then please confirm against google scholar that sources using lower case are [almost] always referring to our solar system or the galactic centre of our galaxy. See also the Iranian revolution or the Syrian civil war, which include a descriptor and are made specific by the definite article. Descriptors associated with geographical names are a similar but separate matter.

In various discussions (eg here, here and here) you would appear to be advocating a rule based approach to determining what a proper name is and what we should be capitalising on WP. Any robust rule, law or theory that adequately describes and determines what a proper name is, inherently falls from the discipline of linguistics and more precisely, onomastics. WP is inherently source base and the strongest sources are peer reviewed academic sources. So, if one was to advocate a rule based approach to capitalisation, we would need to consult the best quality sources. Your linked comments have referred to and would appear to advocate simplistic rules for what a proper name is - eg where specificity of referent is viewed as defining. In RMs, I have simply pointed out that such a perception is not defining and that such a simplistic rule is inadequate to resolving such questions. Specificity of referent is intrinsically conferred to a name phrase by the definite article (the). If the name phrase in question adopts the definite article in prose, specificity alone does not determine that the name phrase is a proper name. I have occasionally added that, if anything is defining, it is that a proper name is not descriptive. I agree that, in an RM, we shouldn't be having a detailed discussion like this section is. I am not the one advocating a rule based definition of proper names. I am simply pointing to the flaws and inconsistencies in some simplistic perceptions of the rules. A criterion for capitalisation based on empirical evidence (usage in sources) is a simple solution but not a simplistic solution. It is what we have now. If something needs to be capitalised on WP, it will be consistently capped in sources. However, we do need to be aware that some styles cap the expansion of an initialism so we need to discount sources where this is done. We also need to be aware of and avoid capping terms of art, in law especially, which uses caps to denote a term of art. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]