 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The contents of the USFL Territorial Draft page were merged into USFL draft on 12 February 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
 | On 13 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from USFL DrafttoUSFL draft. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Very similar topics, does not seem warranted to have separate articles for the two types of drafts the original USFL had. The articles do not meet any of the criteria at WP:NOTMERGE to prevent a merger. The drafts were also so indistinct that in 1983, 1984, and 1985, they were both held on the same day. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]Seeing as the page has bee protected. Now would be a good time, for any editor (who thinks "Draft" should be changed to "draft") to open an RM. The result of such an RM, would end the page name dispute. Including the 1983 USFL Draft, 1984 USFL Draft, 1985 USFL Draft & 1986 USFL Draft in the RM, would be preferable. GoodDay (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would recommend the 1983 to 1986 USFL Territorial Draft pages, too. They're currently inconsistent among themselves. GoodDay (talk) 05:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the move request was: moved. While there is greater dissension with respect to the subtopic nominations, there is overall consensus to move as proposed with respect to all subjects. BD2412 T 15:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
– Lowercase dominates in sources for the older (1980s) USFL drafts (the 1984 USFL territorial draft is not in the list because it's already lowercase). For the modern (2022, 2023) drafts, it's a different USFL, needing specific attention; these look like majority capped in news, but not nearly consistently capped, so per the criterion in MOS:CAPS, these also should use lowercase. I've put them into one RM discussion so they can be discussed together; some editors have argued that they should be consistent, and others that they are independent questions; both viewpoints are worth discussing. Dicklyon (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I take your statement that you would no longer weigh in on capitalization questions is no longer operative. I understand your tendency to overlook P&G in favor of "consistency", but what are you aiming to be consistent with here? Dicklyon (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence.
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization):Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.
—Bagumba (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]Outside Wikipedia, and within certain specific fields (such as medicine), the usage of all-capital terms may be a proper way to feature new or important items. However these cases are typically examples of buzzwords, which by capitalization are (improperly) given special emphasis.
we should be consistentthen shouldn't the larger historical period of 1983–1986 be included for analysis, not just limited to the more limited "modern league" (2022–2023)? Or are you neutral on 1983–1986? —Bagumba (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we are not capitalizing "USFL draft", why would we have "1985 USFL Draft", when the policy gives preference to lowercase? —Bagumba (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]Titles are written in sentence case. The initial letter of a title is almost always capitalized by default; otherwise, words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text
Book n-grams show only the lowercase draft, so uppercase is in the minority. Dicklyon (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No book n-grams these years, but lots of news coverage. These news outlets use lowercase:
And then the uppercase (list by BeanieFan11, parenthetical observations by Dicklyon):
You've got Sportskeeda in the wrong list...: It should just be outright removed as unreliable (WP:SPORTSKEEDA).—Bagumba (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
—Bagumba (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints.
SmokeyJoe's !vote is problematic in multiple ways, is contrary to the guidelines (both those it is trying to rely on and those it is trying to sidestep), and doesn't even correctly interpret the essay it cites.
SJ's !vote is one of the strangest I've ever seen at any RM, honestly. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Various detailia on things that aren't really "titles", and on variant, fractious approaches to what "proper name" means ... |
|---|
|
The sandwich I just made is simply my sandwich, and you could call it SMcCandlish's sandwich, but it's not SMcCandlish's Sandwich with a capital S. If I publish a recipe called "SMcCandlish's Sandwich" then that would be a title of a published/creative work, and as such a proper name (though in some citation styles it would be required to be rendered "SMcCandlish's sandwich" in sentence case), and taking quotation marks as a minor work. But the underlying sandwich type you can make from the recipe would just be an SMcCandlish['s] sandwich, if you put the name to it. If I trademarked a commercially produced product, another form of proper name, then you might buy SMcCandlish's Sandwiches® in bulk at the supermarket. Certain things that are conventionally treated as if titles of works but which are incipits, descriptors, or other designations, are technically not actually titles per se, only "names" in the broadest sense that includes all designation and apellations; they are not proper names under various (but not all) definitons. Some examples include Girl with a Pearl Earring, "Remember not, Lord, our offences", and Led Zeppelin IV. How to handle capitalization, italics, etc., are variable matters of convention (some of it conflicting between fields). The more often they are treated as if titles by sources then the more likely we'll be to capitalize them and give them italics or quotation marks for what sort of work they are, following source usage, though WP may not have complete consistency on this. E.g. we do Led Zeppelin IV, but then we do the White Album without italics (but with capitals), probably because the actual title of the album is The Beatles. Incipits of songs, poems, etc., are typically given in sentence instead of title case, also not a WP-invented convention. And whether to use quotation marks/italics is occasionally governed by some external standard, as in classical music; see List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven, etc., for how the style varies a lot dependending on whether it's a stand-alone work or a fragment, whether the name/title is original (a "true" title), a conventional names scholars and the public have agreed on, a descriptive or classifying designator assigned by academics, and so on; I'm not sure that WP should go along with the level of variety on this that is preferred by some off-site writers in that field, since it may be confusing for readers, but we seem stuck with it. Variant definitions of "proper name" and even of "proper noun [phrase]" could exclude certain actual titles of works, if the content or function of them is essentially descriptive (Oxford English Dictionary, 6 (Pigface album), John Dies at the End), or is not unique even within its class of things (The Black Album (disambiguation)), or perhaps only when not unique among an extremely narrow class of related things (the two self-titled albums Tim RosebyTim Rose). Exactly who considers what a proper name out of these kinds of categories, why, and with what bright lines (if any) varies by thinker, and there's no global consensus on it. For many if not most definitions of the concept, having a unique referent in the world is irrelevant ("Michael" is a proper name despite there being millions of Michaels), but having a specific and unique referent within the particular context is usually a factor, though it may be a group referent, e.g. "Turks". Some definitions would actually exclude that, though, or even anything that can take a plural form. There really, really is not actual real-world agreement on what "proper name" means and what qualifies. Even worse arguments break out when people from one of the philosophy camps assert that nothing that can take a leading "the" is really a proper name; other philosophers think this is bunk, and linguists (aside from a handful who've been influenced by that one philosophy camp) know it's bunk because whether something takes a "the" is entirely a matter of incidental convention, determined on a case-by-case basis by extraneous factors that have nothing to do with the type of name or referent – it varies by region/dialect on some matters, by the accident of the words constructing the name and their order and what grammatical structure(s) they form ("United States Customs and Border Protection" vs. "the Bureau of Land Management"), by whether a long or short form of the name for the same referent is used ("the Bureau of Land Management", "the United States Supreme Court", and "the Labour Party", vs. "BLM", "SCoTUS", and "Labour"), by speaker (most people refer to "BLM" but a few to "the BLM", which may come across as old-fashioned, but not for some other cases like "the ACLU", which is more common than "ACLU" by itself), whether it is being used as a modifier ("at the Royal Canadian Mint" vs. "according to Royal Canadian Mint reports"), etc., etc., etc. The "the" thing is increasingly (though not universally) seen as a red herring, long with pluralizability. Our own article at Proper noun is actually pretty crappy; it mostly reads as if written based on undergraduate materials from the late 20th century, and mostly by one or two people with backgrounds that were not actually heavy on linguistics but steeped in a philsophy branch, since it makes assertions most linguists would not agree with – things that appear to have been content-forked over from Proper name (philosophy) or which might even date to before the articles were split in the late 2000s. Both articles need attention, but the academic volumes required to do it well are very expensive (hundreds of dollars each); maybe WP:TWL can get at some of them for free now. |
Language of the guideline should be changed to reflect this (what would be the steps to do this?): The MOS talk page is thataway.—Bagumba (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe and The Kip: You guys should take a moment to say if you have any reason to oppose still, in light of this analysis of Smokey's stated reason. Dicklyon (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting the main page from the year pages (in terms of naming) wouldn't do, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in a request for closure. It's been over two weeks, since this RM was opened & it's been about three days, since the last 'survey' input. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contacted the closure board again, folks. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2024 (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.
