Talk:Connecticut panhandle

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Connecticut panhandle. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 January 2024[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 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: Moved all but West Virigina articles, for which there was No consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– Not consistently capitalized in sources; also should be consistent with Florida panhandle, which was recently moved (permalink). Elli (talk | contribs) 19:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Cinderella157, PK-WIKI, Amakuru, The Grid, Randy Kryn, Dicklyon, and Tony1: who participated in the Florida discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Some of these have seen majority capitalization, but not the "consistently capitalized" that MOS:CAPS calls for. And unlike a lot of terms, their capitalization has been declining in recent decades, not increasing. So it's fair to say that sources are not treating these as proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and Dick.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Out of the US panhandle articles, there are perhaps two that might be argued about because they have historically been capitalised. However, as noted by PK-WIKI in the previous discussion, we should be considering the most recent usage. On this basis none of the names reach the threshold of being "consistently capitalised" that would lead us to capitalise per MOS:CAPS. Furthermore, if the capitalisation is to be consistent across these articles (an argument I did not make previously), then a clear majority of cases would dictate that all should be lowercase. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Connecticut has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on two, I live very close to the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia and I have never seen "Panhandle" in lower case on either the Eastern or Northern. While I can't speak for the rest, these two are definitely always capitalized. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Even if you have never seen the term lowercase in your own experience, Wikipedia has different guidelines when it comes to capitalization and using sentence case. I just came from the Florida panhandle discussion. (Almost stated Florida peninsula which could also be correct as a region is lowercase but if it's a proper town or place then uppercase is valid.) – The Grid (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Grid: Please check the references provided by myself (above) and by P Aculeius below. "Florida panhandle" is correct, but "Eastern panhandle" is not. Just because Wikipedia has "different guidelines when it comes to capitalization and us[e] in sentence case" does not change fact. The fact of the matter is, "Northern Panhandle" and "Eastern Panhandle", when discussing specifically West Virginia and only West Virginia, is not only grammatically correct and referenced as consistently capitalized by the State of West Virginia and media sites, dating back at least 50 years. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have requested the MOS folks have a say on this portion of the discussion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose with respect to the West Virginia panhandles; neutral on the others.: regarding West Virginia's panhandles, The West Virginia Encyclopedia treats both as proper names in their respective articles.[1] They are treated as proper names in Otis K. Rice's West Virginia: A History, probably the best-known history of the state,[2] and in West Virginia, A Bicentennial History.[3] A quick search of articles for "panhandle" in the state's two largest newspapers, the Charleston Gazette-Mail and The Herald-Dispatch, shows that both panhandles are consistently capitalized as proper names.
A quick Google search suggested no other places commonly known as "northern" or "eastern" panhandles; this ngram appears to show that in all English-language publications, the phrase "Eastern Panhandle" is usually capitalized, and has been historically. The case is closer in this ngram for "northern panhandle" in all possible capitalizations, but historically it was treated as a proper name more often than not. Given that both are consistently treated as proper names in reliable sources about West Virginia, including histories and reference works, and in the main newspapers of record, I think these should be regarded as proper names.
Perhaps the fact that there are two of them, requiring separate names, distinguishes West Virginia's panhandles from those in states having only one, where "panhandle" may be regarded as a common noun. P Aculeius (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book stats suggest that your impression is wrong; lowercase is actually more common, and has been for decades. In any case, it's clear that these are not "consistently capitalized" in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative support. I had some misgivings about this, based on my own anecdotal notions (I long lived near the Texas and Oklahoma [p|P]anhandles and in my memory they were typically capitalized), but usage changes, with English moving more and more toward lowercasing that which doesn't seem to "demand" capitalization. I do wonder whether there are any direct correspondences between these regions and official boundaries, that may make one or more them proper-noun constructions instead of purely descriptive appellations. The most contentious ones above seem to be the WV cases. Ngram for the northern one [1] shows long-term dominance of the lower-case form, with a spike in capitalization after 2010, which may be WP influencing the results (and actually putting caps slightly in the lead all of sudden around 2018 or so). The eastern one also has lower-case consistently in the lead, though not by as much and without a capitalization spike (go figure) [2]. In both cases, the results are probably skewed slightly in favor of capitals, by not weeding out title-case headlines and such (I tried prepending "the" to fix that, but the results were too few to rate). Compared to the results that follow, this actually makes both of the WV cases the least supportable as capitalized, despite the comments above. "I can find a sources that prefers to capitalize them" really doesn't mean anything.

    The CT one doesn't show up in enough sources to ngram it. NE: capitalization once dominated but has declined so much the two forms have come out even [3]. OK: Same thing happening, a little slower [4]. (Ditto with FL, not under review here [5].) ID: ngrams actually show more capitalization [6], and same with TX [7]; they are quite commonly capitalized in news but not consistently; if some were to remain capitalized, it would probably be these, but if various news sources, usually actually from the regions in question, don't treat them as proper names, I'm inclined to go along with that.

    Capitalization of regional terms that don't correspond to jurisdictions of some sort has always been iffy. There are lots and lots of ill-defined ones like "Northern California", etc. Some that seem ill-defined actually correspond to an officially-defined thing like a Metropolitan Statistical Area or Combined Statistical Area of the US Census Bureau, which is a reasonable argument for proper-noun status. I'm not sure if any of our panhandles here can lay such a claim, but that might be worth consideration (and if so, possibly some !vote reconsideration – MOS:PROPERNAME overrides the lead of MOS:CAPS by definition; if it did not, then PROPERNAME would simply have to be deleted from CAPS as never-applicable noise). It's also important that WP:CONSISTENT only applies to things that are actually properly comparable; it can't be misused to force a demonstrable proper name to lower-case. But "proper name" doesn't mean "stuff I see capitalized pretty often". Some publishers just have a house-style to capitalize anything vaguely in the ball-park of "placename" no matter what kind it is; I live near San Francisco, and all the papers around here refer to it as "the City" or even "The City", but we all know that's silly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm astonished that your ngrams only consider usage from 1980 onward, as though that were the only relevant period for this inquiry. Had had you chosen a different starting point—1900, for example—your conclusion that lowercase has "long-term dominance" would be impossible to justify. But ngrams don't tell the whole story, which was why I looked for sources that might have some quasi-official stance on the topic, such as standard reference works about the subject, and how they treat it. I find your reduction of looking for the most relevant sources to "I can find a sources that prefers to capitalize them" insulting, as well as ungrammatical. You're not going to find sources with more direct relevance than the encyclopedia and two histories I cited. They clearly distinguish "Northern Panhandle" and "Eastern Panhandle" as proper names, even while using "panhandle" by itself as a common noun.
    Newspaper usage seems like a good guide, but major newspapers aren't likely to have West Virginia in their style guides: I searched New York Times articles and was astonished to discover that "Panhandle" is frequently capitalized with respect to Texas, Florida, and Idaho, while references to West Virginia alternated between capitalized, partly-capitalized, and lowercase. But the major newspapers actually in West Virginia have more cause to refer to, and have a standard practice with respect to places that have little cause for standardization in national sources, and they too consistently apply capitalization.
    I'll repeat and emphasize my earlier supposition: no other state—at least no other in this list—is burdened with two regions consistently referred to as "panhandles", allowing them to be referred to simply as "the panhandle", and why even appending the name of the state to which they belong doesn't suffice to distinguish them. This result doesn't demand that "Northern Panhandle" and "Eastern Panhandle" be treated as proper names, but it does account for why they are treated as such across published sources about and in West Virginia, which are surely the most relevant, when the state and its features are hardly known and seldom referred to elsewhere. P Aculeius (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While there was a lot more capping of the WVA Panhandles back during WWII, there was never a time when they were "consistently" capped. See stats back to 1950 (to clip off the big WWII spike, which is an outlier). The caps are not a critical part of describing those salients of your state. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think looking into the actual results gives a better picture [8]. USGS has a couple entries. In prose, the lowercase is used as it's describing the physical region. If it's within a table, the region names are capitalized. However, I still see uppercase used in the prose. At least that's with sampling the first few pages of the content. I get SMcCandlish's mention of CSA names but I have seen cases where the articles can be minimized to Central city metropolitan area for brevity as the naming of the CSA or MSA uses the top three cities. A personal example is the Sarasota metropolitan area page. – The Grid (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "why they [WV panhandles] are treated as such [capitalized] across published sources": They're not; they ended up being the weakest of the bunch in this regard. They do get capitalized a lot in local/regional sources, but that is true of all of the panhandles in all of their areas, and it's not really "consistent" even in those source pools, just higher. I do really think this is an edge case, but the results so far aren't that promising for capitalizing them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That anyone would be "astonished" that we look at modern English-language sources to answer style questions about usage in modern English is ... astonishing. We have no encyclopedic interest at all in what was typically capitalized generations ago; it's simply not relevant in any way to WP:AT or MOS:CAPS or WP:NCCAPS questions. (Well, it might be of interest in a general-trends sense at a "History" section, which we lack, at Capitalization in English.) Repeat: being able to find some sources that prefer to capitalize it doesn't tell us anything; we already knew there were some that did, or this discussion would never have existed. WP doesn't follow some other publisher's in-house style. Being the most relevant/reliable sources for facts about a topic does not magically transmutate a source into being a reliable sources on how to write 2024 encyclopedic English about that topic. Reliability for facts is not reliabilty for English-writing style about facts. This is the same ol' tedious specialized-style fallacy as usual.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What was "astonishing" is that your searches were tailored to exclude historical usage, in a case where ngrams showing historical usage and drawing a contrary conclusion from them were already posted in this discussion, as though hiding the rest behind a curtain made it go away. And that's quite relevant when the numbers in general usage are otherwise very similar. Nobody claims that "some other publisher's in-house style" dictates the result for Wikipedia, but ignoring what that style is or what published sources with some authority and expertise on the subject do when the evidence is otherwise ambiguous is simply hiding your head in the sand. So is "the same ol' citing smarmy essays as though they were Wikipedia policy fallacy". You keep beating the drum about "finding sources that support your point proves nothing", as if a general lack of sources with any authority for the contrary position were proof positive.
But I didn't go to those sources to bolster my opinion: I consulted them to see what they do, since those are somewhat authoritative sources that actually have something to say about the subject. USGS topographical maps don't usually name features like this; the GNIS doesn't include them, and is open to regular attacks claiming that it's not a reliable source anyway. Your argument seems to be that we should ignore what sources that discuss the subject because it's included in their scope of reference have to say because some other sources are inconsistent; that as long as some of the evidence is inconclusive, you can ignore all of the evidence that opposes your position; that how local sources treat the geographic names in their area is irrelevant if someone on high can't make up their mind. What is the point in having a discussion when you're going to dismiss any sources that don't support your conclusion? P Aculeius (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for WV ones GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for Connecticut, Idaho, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas. Neutral on the West Virginia ones.--Woko Sapien (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The West Virginia Encyclopedia, Ken Sullivan, ed., West Virginia Humanities Council, Charleston (2006).
  2. ^ Otis K. Rice, Stephen W. Brown, West Virginia: A History, 2nd ed., University Press of Kentucky, Lexington (1993).
  3. ^ John Alexander Williams, West Virginia: A Bicentennial History, W.W. Norton & Company, New York (1976).
Relisting comment: Need consensus on WV articles. Bensci54 (talk) 17:16, 15 January 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.

Bensci54, would you please clarify (give further detail) as to why you have concluded no consensus for the two West Virginian panhandles? In particular, I would note WP:RMCIDC, WP:NHC, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:!VOTE. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debate centered around whether the names were "consistently capitalized in reliable sources" per WP:NCCAPS. Neutralhomer and SMcCandlish both provided evidence for their Oppose position indicating that capitalization was indeed consistent, whereas P Aculeius and Dicklyon provided evidence to the contrary. Further discussion did not result in a consensus forming between them. I relisted to attempt to get a consensus on the WV articles a week ago, but since then, no further discussion has occurred, and those who commented since the reslisting have all been neutral on the WV articles. So, since it is not recommended to relist a discussion more than once, I closed with no consensus on the WV articles. Bensci54 (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bensci54: Um, I think you need to read again. SMcCandlish ... provided evidence ... indicating that capitalization was indeed consistent is completely backwards. Let me repeat myself: The most contentious ones above seem to be the WV cases. Ngram for the northern one shows long-term dominance of the lower-case form, with a spike in capitalization after 2010, which may be WP influencing the results (and actually putting caps slightly in the lead all of sudden around 2018 or so). The eastern one also has lower-case consistently in the lead, though not by as much and without a capitalization spike (go figure). In both cases, the results are probably skewed slightly in favor of capitals, by not weeding out title-case headlines and such (I tried prepending "the" to fix that, but the results were too few to rate). Compared to the results that follow, this actually makes both of the WV cases the least supportable as capitalized, despite the comments above. (Emphasis added.) P Aculeius then made a bogus argument that we should defer to pre-modern sources that preferred capitalization. I refuted that: WP doesn't care how English was written a couple of generations ago (namely, highly favorable of capitalization of all sorts); none of our title and other style decisions on made on such a basis. Then he simply rantily and accusatorily repeated his idea as if not refuted ("proof by assertion"). I honestly don't care much about the actual result of this (which is why my support for the moves was tentative, since I know some people like to capitalize these and source usage may even lean a little toward the capitals, at least for some of them). But the evidence I gave was interpreted somehow completely backwardly, the sources lean less for capitalization in the WV cases than any others, and our standard (MOS:CAPS) is only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia, and this doesn't appear to qualify even if P Aculeius's obsolete material is included (there was a period from around 1940–1950 when the argument could have been made, but that was long ago and English-writing norms have changed since them).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I got you and P Aculeius flipped around in my summary above. I meant to have said Neutralhomer and P Aculeius had evidence for Oppose and SMcCandlish and Dicklyon had evidence for Support. Bensci54 (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't planning to keep arguing, but after being maligned and insulted multiple times in the above mess, which rants just fine for something accusing me of ranting, and having everything I said mischaracterized, I'll just restate: standard reference works about West Virginia seem like perfectly good sources to consult for how the names are treated by scholarship. I don't think they're "obsolete" simply because they weren't written yesterday—no later or more authoritative sources appear anywhere in this discussion, and I'm not aware of any.
Occurrences in print media—for instance, the New York Times, or the state's own major newspapers, which have more reason to refer to geographical regions of West Virginia and to have their own consistent house style, unlike national papers that barely seem aware of West Virginia, and refer to the panhandles too rarely to have any kind of official style—also seem quite relevant to this discussion. And when ngrams show inconclusive results in recent publications, it makes perfect sense to look at what has historically been done.
But I guess arguments that don't prove what you want them to are "bogus", and if you can think of reasons for disregarding all of the material you disagree with, then everyone else is obliged to pretend it doesn't exist and isn't entitled to any weight. I hope you will forgive me if I don't buy the statement that said editor "[doesn't] care much about the actual result of this", since the level of vitriol expressed in said rant clearly demonstrates otherwise. I'd rather not carry this on for no purpose whatsoever, and I'm sure there will be further accusations of lunacy and irrelevancy to follow this, but I found it difficult not to respond to what I just read about myself. P Aculeius (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being disagreed with doesn't mean you're being insulted or attacked or treated with vitriol, it just means someone disagrees with you and is saying so. If you take this "contradiction is offensive" approach to Wikipedia, which is characterized by editorial disagreement about facts and sources on a constant basis, you're not going to have an enjoyable time here. To go over this again as a series of short points:
  • The fact that you can find some sources that like to capitalize these things does nothing at all to disprove that the capitalization does not meet our "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia" standard (emphasis in original). That's really all this ever came down to.
  • NYT's choices are not especially relevant; they have their own (very divergent from everyone) style guide, and WP does not follow it, nor do they follow ours.
  • Reference works about WV are not any more relevant than other sources, since this is not a question about the history or other facts of WV (where those sources might be more reliable than many other sorts); it's a question about English-language usage, and local-history materials about a place are not authorities on English writing style questions.
  • "when ngrams show inconclusive results in recent publications", then our default is lower-case, per the rule already quoted. There is no magical loophole to get around that.
  • "it makes perfect sense to look at what has historically been done" – No, it never, ever does. WP is not written in early-20th-century English. Old sources tell us absolutely nothing useful about a question of this sort, because the conventions of capitalization in English have markedly changed over the last few generations, strongly toward lower-casing when possible, as reflected in a lot of actual authorities on English-language usage. WP did not come up with its rule by pulling a notion out of it's collective butt; we're applying the avoid-capitalization-when-possible standards of all major modern style guides on English writing.
Finally, if you think that the rule cited above should change to something like "consistently capitalized in 50.00001% or more of sources, whether or not they are independent, secondary, and reliable", you can go make a proposal to that effect at WT:MOSCAPS. I think we all know how that will go.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree with Ngram. My direct evidence from area media sources show (I could bring up businesses as well) that capitalization is currently preferred. A scrape by Google doesn't prove anything in my opinion. There are many sites that Google can't scrape. So, personally, I think Ngram should be thrown out. Bensci54 made the correct decision here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't throw out evidence simply because someone "do[es]n't agree with it". WP is not post-truth and is not interested in truthiness; you are not "entitled to your own facts". No one has suggested that area media sources are not more likely to capitalize, though they do not do it consistently. It's simply immaterial. This is a general English-language usage question for a global audience, not a matter of "local pride" preferences. PS: Local business names (e.g. "Western Panhandle Auto Sales", etc.) are super-duper irrelevant, since they are proper names, so everything in them (other than "of", "an", etc.) will be capitalized. If I name my business "Twelve Hounds Consulting" that doesn't make "twelve", "hounds", or "consulting" proper names on their own, or indicate that the string "twelve hounds" should be capitalized in any context other than my business name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bensci54, the prevailing WP:P&G is WP:AT, WP:NCCAPS and ultimately MOS:CAPS (per discussion). While some may not like what these say, I don't see anyone disputing that these are the prevailing P&G. MOS:CAPS would state: 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. In essence, this is a statistical question to be resolved by an unbiased (random) statistically significant sample of sources dealing with the subject. Are comments to effect: "That's not how we do it in West Virginia and here are a heap of West Virginian sources" a relevant argument? Is it consistent with the prevailing policy. Does it show an understanding of the matter of issue? How should a closer consider such arguments per the links I initially supplied? Cinderella157 (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually live in Virginia and we still capitalize it here. But removing the West Virginia sources we are left with....WUSA-TV and WRC-TV in Washington, DC, WDVM-TV in Hagerstown, Maryland, WTOV-TV in Steubenville, OH, and WPXI-TV in Pittsburgh. These are all "outside" of West Virginia and still capitalize "Eastern" and "Northern", as well as "Panhandle". Others can be found.
    The rules of Wikipedia are irrelevant to the reality that regional spellings doesn't have to correspond accordingly to the unconnected rules of this website. While I'm sorry there are those that feel they should (which is their basic argument here), local, regional, and national sources all show that both "Eastern" and "Northern" are capitalized, "Panhandle" is capitalized. While some may not like that these sites disagree with them, I don't see anyone putting forth a legitimate and logical arguement outside of "but the rules". Simply put, reality is in disagreement with the rules of this website, thus we must follow WP:IAR. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument that all sources from the places involved must be disregarded because they're not "independent" is nonsensical and factually incorrect—of course Wikipedia naming policy considers what the subjects of articles call themselves, even though that alone may not be determinative. The official names of people, nations, states, corporations, and various other entities are relevant and considered as part of any discussion of article titling, and have been the subject of numerous and lengthy discussions. In none of these has "they're not independent of themselves!" been considered a valid objection. Such an argument constitutes absurdity, when it requires excluding most of the sources that might be considered authoritative on a specific and limited question such as, "is this a proper name, or merely one description among others?"
    The discussion closer considered your arguments, and the relevant policies raised by the participants in this discussion, and taking all that into account, concluded that there was insufficient consensus for the move proposed in some of the instances discussed. You continue to argue that policy trumps consensus, but your interpretation of how a policy should be applied is not inherently better than anyone else's interpretation of the same policy, and how it applies to a specific instance. And there is no consensus here that your interpretation of how that policy applies in these specific instances is the correct one. P Aculeius (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You continue to argue that policy trumps consensus ... Policy tells us that consensus is not a vote but determined by strength of argument. Strength of argument comes from evidence assessed against established criteria (WP:P&G). However, I am not continuing to argue. What I am doing is asking the closer to give a clearer explanation of their taking all that into account to reach a conclusion that would distinguish their close from vote counting. As to what arguments I have made, I suggest you look again. As to Wikipedia naming policy, WP:AT states: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) ... Cinderella157 (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If "it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)", then P Aculeius and myself have proven that multiple times over with local, regional, and historical independent, reliable sources. If a review of this decision is what you are wanting, then I suggest taking it to AN or MOS for review. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I am asking Bensci54 is whether they can provide reasonable detail of how they have reached their conclusion that would confirm that they have reached such a conclusion in a way that is consistent with the guidance for closers (as linked in my OP). The initial close provided insufficient detail per WP:NHC. The subsequent comment provided so far does not distinguish this issue from a vote count (again, contrary to WP:NHC). Whether the close would warrant a WP:MR is totally dependent on whether the closer can show that their close was consistent with the guidance for closers. Another alternative is for the closer to retract their close but that is their decision. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bensci54: Would you mind putting this to bed, please? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am confused as to where you are getting that I closed this merely by counting votes. In my summary above, I did mention two opposers and two supporters, but this was only mentioning who was on which sides of the issue. The fact that it was 2-2 in my summary was in no way what led to my no consensus finding. My logic would have been the same if it were 3-1 or 1-3, etc. Regardless of the number of people on each side, both sides had evidence relevant to the P&G supporting their position, and the two sides were not able to come to an agreement. I further have no indication from within the RM or P&G as to which direction a "predominant number of responsible editors would support" (this language comes right from WP:NHC).
    To me it is clear that this is a very contentious issue still - if these were the only two articles on the RM at this point I would indeed retract the close as you suggest so that discussion could continue. But being a multi-move as it is, with the majority of articles moved without opposition, I could not retract it without moving all of them back, which I don't think anyone wants. So my recommendation here would be to start a new RM on just the WV articles to continue the discussion if you want. A "no consensus" finding conveys no prejudice against a new RM. Bensci54 (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 January 2024[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 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: moved. Consensus to move; a majority of editors support this move and cite policy in support of it, specifically MOS:CAPS, with strong evidence.

I note that I see no procedural issue with this request; given the broad nature of the previous RM, and that it found no consensus for these specific questions, it seems appropriate to hold a more specific RM - if the previous RM had been on the same question, or if it had found a consensus against this proposal, then I would consider this RM to be inappropriate. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– Reopening discussion for these particular cases per pervious RM and post-close discussion (above). Listing here for continuity of discussion. Prevailing P&G is WP:AT, WP:NCCAPS and ultimately MOS:CAPS which states: 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. Ngrams for Northern Panhandle of West Virginia and Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia do not show consistent capitalisation in sources (particularly contemporary usage) that would lead us to capitalise panhandle in these titles. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural comment. If this is a continuation of the previous discussion, then that discussion has been closed and any concern about the reading of consensus should take place at Wikipedia:Move review. If this is a new discussion, it should take place at the talk page of one of the articles in the request, not here. "Continuity of discussion" implies that the above discussion had not been concluded. Initiating new move requests immediately after the closure of previous ones, with the same arguments, is not conducive to finding a new consensus—only to finding a different group of respondents. Dekimasuよ! 03:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see closers comment here in the post close discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, in that case the correct location for the discussion is at Talk:Northern Panhandle of West Virginia. Dekimasuよ! 03:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both affected articles have the appropriate notices in place. There is a benefit to having this discussion in the same place as the previous directly related discussion since editors can easily see what was said therein. This would fall to WP:NOTBURO, WP:5P5 and WP:IAR. The spirit and intent of the process is being followed through the notifications. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Having the discussion be at the talk page of one of the WV articles would have been better, since this page has no connection to those topics. Links exist for a reason, and a link to the old discussion could have been included when opening the new ones. But this will work well enough. Dekimasu's argument that WP:DRV has to be used is obviously wrong; DRV is only for examining whether the closer erred, and no one is raising that concern (at least enough to invoke DRV), and the closer actually specifically recommended that this followup discussion take place to resolve the "no consensus" result about the WV cases.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (I didn't argue that WP:MR must be used here. I made an if–then statement regarding the case in which the proposer's intent was to challenge the previous close. Dekimasuよ! 02:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    Okay, but I don't see what the point was. If someone meant to challenge the close, then MR would already have started. The closer recommended a followup RM to settle the "no consensus", so that's what we're doing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Decline and Dismiss: Per previous discussion and numerous sources: The Martinsburg Journal-News, WUSA-TV and WRC-TV in Washington, DC, WDVM-TV in Hagerstown, Maryland, West Virginia MetroNews, The Wheeling Intelligencer and News-Register, WTRF-TV in Wheeling, WTOV-TV in Steubenville, OH, and WPXI-TV in Pittsburgh, as well as The West Virginia Encyclopedia[1], Otis K. Rice's West Virginia: A History, [2] and in West Virginia, A Bicentennial History.[3] all show that these two in particular are regional spellings/capitalizations are preferred and disagree with Google Ngrams. I should further note that nowhere in our rules does it say that Google Ngrams are the end all, be all in MOS discussions.
Further, Cinderella157 !voted in the above discussion supporting the name change for these two articles (and others). This user has entered into this particular discussion with a non-neutral point of view. Their previous arguement that allowing these two spellings would "lead us to capitalise per MOS:CAPS", is basically the same arguement in this discussion. It was taken into account by the previous closing editor and dismissed.
With the multiple sources provided that show the direct opposite and an already dismissed arguement in a previous discussion, I am recommending this discussion be speedily declined and dismissed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments were not dismissed. Read the close and post-close discussion. There was no a clear consensus, perhaps due to so few participants. Getting to consensus is more likely with more discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The weak "but Google says..." arguement was taken into account by the closer, clearly it didn't sway them, and thus was considered moot ("dismissed" was a more politer version). I would like to see where in Wikipedia Policy that Google Ngrams are the end all, be all when it comes to naming articles. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google merely made some stats available. Nobody has ever claimed that book n-grams are the "end all, be all" in naming discussions, but they do sometimes help inform the discussions. Here, they make it obvious that these terms are not even anywhere near consistently capitalized in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some people are definitely acting like Ngrams are the end all, be all. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my impression. But in this case, yes, it seems that the n-gram evidence should be enough to put an end to the question. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon I disagree. There are far too many examples (that I and others have provided) that shows that just isn't the case. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might understand better if you'd point out where you provided those examples. Dicklyon (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here ya go. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All this does is show us that some writers (mostly regional/local ones) prefer to capitalize this, but we already knew that. It's not possible for the n-grams to show mixed usage if the usage is not mixed. Ngrams are of value because they are a statistical analysis, and our standard is (imprecisely) statistical ("substantial majority of independent reliable sources", in practice treated as about a 90% consistency rate in modern RS material). You being able to cherry-pick various examples of the capitalization (the existence of which no one questioned) does absolutely nothing in the direction of demonstrating that sources near-uniformly capitalize these things. It's about a 50:50 rate at best, with a recent uptick probably because of WP itself affecting the capitalization rate lately).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, whether here or at a different talk page.  The data are pretty clear here, and some of the things that were said in oppostion in the RM above just needed to be more clearly refuted, I think.  When caps were in the majority on these, more than a half century ago, they still weren't nearly enough to say these were proper names, using the criteria in our title policy and capitalization guidelines.  More recently, the majority lowercase is overwhelmingly clear.  And while P Aculeous states A quick Google search suggested no other places commonly known as "northern" or "eastern" panhandles, searching a bit more find the phrase "Eastern Panhandle" describing the eastern part of the Texas panhandle, often capped thus since it appears in a title of an oft-cited book; same with Western Panhandle, as you can see in this book.  These cites lead to some of the capped uses of Eastern Panhandle and Western Panhandle that are counted in n-grams; others of course from from the "of West Virginia" ones in titles, heading, tables, etc.  In spite of all that biasing, lowercase wins in *stern panhandle of West Virginia.  Claims about local sources can't compete with the overwhelming evidence from general usage; and some local WV sources use lowercase, like this one and this one. Not to mention the governor.  So claims of it being always capped are specious. Dicklyon (talk) 05:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, the more precise n-grams I gave in my own main comment here exclude the Texas cases (though they are still skewed in favor of uppercase because they are not able to exclude title-case headlines).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the policy and guideline language that the nominator cites, and per the usage data which makes it clear that the capitalized form is insufficiently common in contemporary sources. (And per Dicklyon's points above.) ╠╣uw [talk] 10:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, and note that this is not a logical place to have this discussion, and without any new arguments for it, it's just bludgeoning. Not to mention badly marked up: the reflist-talk template doesn't need a references subsection, and it goes with the text from the closed discussion!
But the underlying issues haven't changed in the last few days: sources that have actual knowledge of these places and some claim to be authoritative on them do consistently capitalize them: two histories of West Virginia and the West Virginia Encyclopedia; both of the state's major newspapers; most, if not all news sites from television stations around the state and neighboring areas. What we're not seeing is any sort of sources with a claim to familiarity with the subject not capitalizing them, or any kind of style guide specifically stating that they should be treated that way. Rare mentions in national sources, such as the New York Times are inconsistent, and don't provide a firm argument for or against capitalization. Historically usage has strongly favoured capitalization, and how something has been treated in the past is perfectly relevant to what its correct name is.
There is also a logical distinction between West Virginia's panhandles and those of other states: other states generally have only one panhandle, which is simply "the panhandle" to their inhabitants. West Virginia has two, which have to be distinguished from one another, and so are distinguished by name: the Eastern Panhandle and the Northern Panhandle. They are treated as proper names because they logically have to be, in a way that panhandles in other states don't. And there are parallels: the Upper and Lower Peninsulas of Michigan. Other states have peninsulas, but Michigan has multiple peninsulas, and their names are treated as proper nouns, not common. But back to the question of why, when there was no consensus before, there would be now, and why here? This is simply a bad proposal through and through. P Aculeius (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the reflist-talk up to near the refs. Dicklyon (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it back to the bottom because it breaks the list formatting (MOS:LISTGAPS).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The previous close was a bit faulty, having come to a "no consensus" result regarding these two cases, on a basis of bogus "both-sidesism", treating weak evidence as if it were equivalent to strong evidence. So, let's just go over this all again in more detail than last time.

    Both of the WV cases are actually the least supportable as capitalized out of all US state panhandles, despite the claims of the capitalizers; all of the others showed a notably higher capitalization rate than the WV pair. The results below are skewed in favor of capitals anyway, by not weeding out title-case headlines and such (I tried prepending "the" to fix that, but the results were too few to rate). Ngrams for the northern one [9][10][11][12] show long-term dominance of the lower-case form, with a sudden spike in capitalization after 2010, which is probably WP influencing the results – the WP:CIRCULAR and WP:CITOGENESIS problem – and actually putting caps slightly in the lead all of sudden around 2018 or so, but not enough of one to change our outcome. The eastern one also has lower-case in the lead long-term, though not by as much and without a capitalization spike (go figure) [13][14][15][16]. Results in Google Scholar for non-news material show a total mixture of veering back and forth between lower- and uppercase: [17][18][19][20].

    I did wonder whether there are any direct correspondences between these regions and official boundaries (e.g. Combined Statistical Areas of the US Census Bureau) that may make one or both of them proper-noun constructions instead of purely descriptive appellations; no one has provided any evidence of such a thing. "I can find some sources that capitalize this" is basically meaningless. Our standard is only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia (MOS:CAPS). Most of the capitalizing sources are area news, and WP doesn't defer to what local sources prefer (e.g. we don't call San Francisco "The City" despite that being extremely common in SF Bay Area news); we look at all usage in modern English-language sources, and these do not show anything near the consistent capitalization we'd need to see. "Modern" is a key word here; WP is not written in early-to-mid-20th-century English, and we don't care what the capitalization rates were several generations ago. Usage changes, with English moving more and more toward lowercasing that which doesn't "demand" capitalization by being capitalized by nearly all professional writing. It's noteworthy both that the capitalization rate in news and other sources drops rapidly the further the publisher is from WV, and that sources even within VW often do not capitalize these things ([21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28], including the WV state government [29] and a WV university [30]). It's also important that the news capitalization rate is much higher than the journal rate, which indicates this is a "feature" of news writing (at least of the local sort), yet Wikipedia is not written in news style as a matter of policy (WP:NOT#NEWS). "Proper name" doesn't mean "stuff I sometimes see capitalized". The fact of the matter is that various publishers have house-style preferences to capitalize or to lowercase various things, and some of them lean uppercase by default if they have any doubt; lots of WV news is in the former camp and WP is the opposite, as are lots of other non-WV publishers with regard to these terms, and academic-leaning publishers in general (hint: WP is essentially an academic work, not news). PS: The argument that because WV has two panhandles that this somehow "must" make them proper names is silly and doesn't conform to capitalization practices in any English-language style guide or other reliable source on usage, but is just made-up nonsense; if I have two dogs, that doesn't magically make them the Big White Dog and the Small Brown Dog.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I never claimed that having two panhandles means that they "must" have proper names. I merely offered that as a logical reason why they're treated as though they have proper names, when other panhandles aren't. Nor did I assert that they're proper names "because I sometimes see them capitalized". That's a straw man you invented. I said that the nearest thing to authoritative sources on the subject of West Virginia treat them as proper names, as do most news sources—those being the main place you'd expect to see West Virginia's panhandles mentioned regularly.
    There's nothing surprising about local sources being more consistent in their capitalization than national ones—big papers like the New York Times only mention these places once in a blue moon, although they do frequently, if not invariably, capitalize them as proper names. I'm also going to call you out on "WP:NOTNEWS", which has precisely zero relevance to whether we can consult news sources to determine if these are proper names. I can only assume that you cited that policy either because you forgot what it was actually about, or because you didn't think that anybody would check. P Aculeius (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When you wrote Perhaps the fact that there are two of them, requiring separate names, distinguishes West Virginia's panhandles from those in states having only one, where "panhandle" may be regarded as a common noun, that sounds to me, too, like you're saying that ("perhaps") having two of them means they have proper names (as opposed to states where a single state panhandle would not). Now you're saying you didn't say that, or several of us just misinterpreted you? Dicklyon (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When one writes: They are treated as proper names because they logically have to be ..., "have to be" means must. I read "must" as using quotes for emphasis rather than a direct quote and the use of italics may have been better but it is not being attributed to a particular person where it would be interpreted as a quote. To be "treated as proper names", unless otherwise clarified, is reasonably understood to mean are proper names, since this is quite different from saying that they must be capitalised, not because they are proper names but for some other reason. There is more than one of us that would interpret what was said as meaning they are proper nouns and must be capitalised. After all, if the assertion is that they aren't actually proper names, what is the logical reason for asserting that have to be capitalised? Northern panhandle of West Virginia and eastern panhandle of West Virginia are, after all, clearly referring to places in West Virginia that are clearly two different places. Capitalisation of panhandle (and of the direction) is unnecessary for these to be the names of two separate regions except that they would now have the appearance of being a proper name. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTNEWS states ... Wikipedia is not written in news style [emphasis added]. The quote and link are accurate. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This has nothing to do with "news style". Have you read that article? The fact that newspapers treat something as a proper name has nothing to do with the way newspaper articles are structured. The closest thing to a news-related policy involving capitalization is the rule against using title case for article titles and section headers, to which proper names are explicitly excepted. And absolutely nothing in NOTNEWS is relevant to this discussion. This policy seems to have been introduced as nothing more than a bluff, on the assumption that it sounds like something that might be relevant.
    But in fact, the policy is concerned primarily with notability, and the examples it provides about what Wikipedia articles should not be are all about notability: 1) Wikipedia is not a place to report breaking news; 2) just because something is in the news doesn't make it notable; 3) not every fact mentioned in connection with a notable event is notable; 4) not every detail of a celebrity's life is notable. None of these have anything to do with whether news sources are relevant for the purpose of determining whether the name of a region is a proper noun!
    And, to respond once again to what you keep harping on, I have said repeatedly that having two separate panhandles is a reason that might explain why they're treated as proper names. I do not, and have never claimed that this is a requirement of having two things that must be distinguished. Just because it is possible to interpret something ambiguously doesn't mean that you're entitled to insist upon an interpretation that you can claim is wrong, in the face of the person who said it telling you exactly what was meant. P Aculeius (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are treated as proper names because they logically have to be [empasis added] emphatically proposes this as a logical fact. It is not saying This is why they might be treated as proper names, which (as I understand it) is now being claimed as the intended meaning. Stating: I never claimed that having two panhandles means that they "must" have proper names, asserts that the error lies with SMcC and that they have misrepresented what was said. My point is, it is not surprising that at least three people have understood this to have been made as a proposition of fact and not an unsubstantiated hypothesis. While we may have misunderstood the intended meaning we have not misrepresented what was stated. However, if this is offered as an explanation of why sources in and about West Virginia capitalise these terms, it is quite helpful. it is readily shown to be a misapplication of the use of capaliisation (per SMcC's example analogy). Using capitalisation in this way is to capitalise for emphasis, distinction and/or importance. Per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS, we do not do this. Because this type of unnecessary capitalisation is proposed to be particularly prevalent in and about West Virginia for these terms, it would then be good reason to give substantially less weight to such local sources rather than more weight. Thank you for providing us with this explanation for why we would see a higher rate of capitalisation locally. It is quite consistent with what is noted at WP:SSF and good reason to assert that sources with close ties to a subject (ie such local sources) are less than independent in respect to capitalisation of the subject. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument comes down to "my interpretation of the policies is better than yours, therefore I win", plus another 5,000 word essay repeating the same thing you've been saying since the beginning. I'm just going to stop responding when all you do is claim that everything I say is wrong, and that you're entitled to disregard any evidence that leads to a contrary result. I already made what I thought was a clear argument, and had to keep explaining it over and over because you insist that what I say doesn't mean what I say it does, but what you want it to mean so that you win. I have better things to do than be bludgeoned by someone who cannot and will not accept the validity of anyone else's views. P Aculeius (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've presented no new evidence to consider much less "disregard". As with Neutralhomer, all you're presenting (aside from lots of circular hand-waving argumentation about semantics) is the fact that various writers, especially local ones, do like to capitalize these things, but that was never in doubt by anyone. The question is whether these terms are capitalized in the vast majority of sources, and they are already firmly proven to not be. One closer somehow mistook your loud venting about the subject as if it were an equal-but-opposite evidence-and-P&G-based argument, but that's not likely to happen twice. I've presented much more evidence, that is statistically meaningful and uncontroverted, in this second RM, while you have produced nothing but additional distraction, and blatant WP:OR theorizing about what "has to be" a proper name which has nothing to do with WP and its decisionmaking about capitals; all that matters is whether nearly all the sources capitalize something, and in this case they don't. There is nothing further to it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Fine with the moves, per nomination and evidence, although Cinderella157 please open the request on the correct page next time, this has caused unnecessary confusion in the request. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (by nom) Following from WP:RMCIDC, WP:NHC and WP:CONSENSUS, not all arguments and the evidence they might draw upon are equal. Arguments of relevance are framed around established criteria (WP:P&G). Similarly the evidence presented must be relevant to the criteria. In this case the key ctiteria are set by MOS:CAPS as quoted above and particularly whether a term/title is capitalized in a substantial majority of sources. It is rarely going to be possible or practical to poll usages in all sources so in essence this is a statistical question to be resolved by a representative sample (ie an unbiased (random) statistically significant sample) of sources dealing with the subject. WP policy does not specifically say that ngrams are the "end all". However ngrams draw on a very large corpus of book sources and it is free from sampling error or bias being introduced by editors interrogating the sample set. The evidence is not about showing there are sources that capitalise the term. It is not about showing there are ten, twenty or one hundred sources that capitalise the term. To address the criteria set by MOS:CAPS, the evidence must address the proportion of capitalisation across sources. To put this in context, google books reports over 12,000 hits for "Panhandle of West Virginia" and nearly 4,000 hits for news sources. If we know that one hundred sources capitalise the term, what do the other 15,900 do?
WP:SSF tells us that sources close to a subject will have a greater tendency to capitalise the subject. This is a documented phenomenon. It is therefore not surprising that a lot of West Virginian sources will tend to capitalise the term and that sources without close ties to these regions are less likely to capitalise the terms. Those supporting capitalisation have made these observations. MOS:CAPS tells us to consider capitalisation in sources [generally]. It does not tell us to give more or less weight to particular sources. It only requires that they are reliable (exercise editorial oversight) and are independent. WP:SSF would tell us that sources with close regional ties to the subject are not independent on the issue of capitalisation of the subject. Sources with relatively close ties to these regions have a bias toward capitalisation. Relying on a sample of sources that predominantly have close ties to the region are not a statistically representative sample because of the acknowledged bias toward capitalisation and is unsuitable for addressing the criteria posed by MOS:CAPS.
P Aculeius (in support of capitalisation) would postulate that these terms are capitalised in [some] sources for reasons of significance or distinction, arguing that they are treated as proper nouns but not that they are proper nouns. I would agree with such an explanation as to why these terms are capitalised in sources with relatively close ties to these regions. However, MOS:SIGNIFCAPS specifically tells us that we do not capitalise for distinction or significance. This is then a substantive reason not to capitalise these terms.
The evidence offered at this time in support of capitalisation, is that sources with close ties to these regions commonly capitalise these terms. Such evidence does not address the criteria of the established guidance at MOS:CAPS. Consequently, such evidence is of no value in resolving that these terms should be capitalised in accordance with the guidance at MOS:CAPS. It is a bit like entering a cat in a dog show. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinderella157: Let me ask you this. Does MOS:CAPS have any real world influence? As in, does MOS:CAPS influence anything outside of this website? We are trying to influence the results of the dog show by yelling outside going "hey, this rule for this website says the alligator is really a dog and they win". We just look like a crazy person on the sidewalk.
To break it down even further, MOS:CAPS does not change the fact that capitalization is not only preferred in both the Northern and Eastern Panhandles, but sources from both the state and independent sources back that up. Our rules and policies have no influence on real world events.
TL;DR, even if the pages are moved, they will continue to be spelled "Eastern Panhandle" and "Northern Panhandle" and thus this site will be wrong.
I believe we are verging into policy territory, which requires a community !vote on a community-wide page (eg: MOS, AN, etc.). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless asked/pinged, this will be the last I will speak on this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, you are providing zero statistical evidence that nearly all sources capitalize these things; you are simply pointing out that some writers do it, which was never in question. Repeating it over and over again does not magically make it a sensible argument. We certainly are "verging into policy territory". We already have multiple community-wide pages about this, namely MOS:CAPS (in multiple parts, including its lead, MOS:SIGCAPS, MOS:PN, etc.), WP:NCCAPS, WP:NCGEO, WP:AT, etc. Continuing to defy the lot of them at all costs to get a personally preferred style nitpick is very draining of editorial time, attention, and goodwill. Cf. WP:NOT#BLOG: this is not anyone's personal website, and it has an internal style sheet just like every other major publisher does. There is no style guide in the whole world that someone is going to personally prefer every single item in it.

If you want to propose that our capitalization guidelines change to something like "WP will capitalize that which is capitalized in 50.0000001% or more of the sources", then the place to make such a proposal is WT:MOSCAPS. It would be WP:SNOW opposed, of course, but unless a proposal happens and consensus miraculously agrees to such a tsunami of over-capitalizing across at least hundreds of thousands of articles, then this RM can only conclude one way based on the available data: Source usage is very, very mixed, and in such cases we always go with lower-case. Always. RMs are decided on the basis of what the sourcing and the applicable WP:P&G are, not what someone wishes they were instead. PS: "influence on real world events" is not a goal of any policy or guideline on Wikipedia. See WP:NOT#ADVICE – our internal documentation and the consensus behind it are not advice of any kind to the general public.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to ping: I think the question is sufficiently answered by SMcC. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is dancing with an alligator and who is dancing with a dog is a matter of perspective: whether one is viewing things from inside a fish bowl (ie West Verginia) or outside of it (ie usage across the board). The guidance at MOS:CAPS is telling us to take the outside view: whether something is capitalised in a substantial majority of sources from across the board. It is certainly not telling us to jump into the fish bowl. To continue the analogy, it is the fish bowl that distorts the view. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per SMcC, Cinderella157, Dicklyon. A lot has been said here already. Moreover, the "of" in the titles makes them plainly indicated to be descriptions. If the title candidate was "West Virginia Northern Panhandle" or "Northern Panhandle, West Virginia" or "The Antenna (West Virginia)" or "Yohogania, West Virginia", there might be more of a cogent argument for uppercase. But those are mere speculations, and nobody has suggested them. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully disagree about magic "of", there are many "University of Foo"s. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 10:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    There is nothing "magical" about of in "University of Foo". It is a near universal convention to capitalise the formal and/or official names of institutions, businesses and polities. However, these panhandles are not polities or formally defined "official" regions. The articles make this clear. These are variably defined descriptions of regions, as of indicates. That comment is a fallacious analogy that falls to reductio ad absurdum and/or a red herring argument. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I've had a brief check and "Northern Panhandle" is clearly used as a proper noun in West Virginia. A more thorough investigation might show that this is not the most common usage. I'm reluctant even so to concur with capitalisation as there is a great deal of "manual of style" involved in this, our MoS, for example, recommending "the university" rather than "the University". Life, however, does not provide an easy route to consistency. The Sussex Downs are far from the only downs in Britain, and yet Kipling's "The Weald is good, the Downs are best" does not do a disservice to English by capitalising both: although, of course, our MoS would write "The Weald is good, the downs are best" because there is only one "Weald". Even if there were other wealds it's name is still the Weald (or indeed The Weald in ungoverned usage). I think that in this area between names which present themselves to us as proper nouns (though they are generally derived from common nouns even if at some remove), and names which seem to be common nouns we have to give some consideration to usage. The Northern Panhandle is not the same as the village green, the park, the church, the lake, it is certainly more proper. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 10:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    The premise that the MOS would have us quote Kipling as other than a faithful reproduction is false. The argument based on this premise falls to reductio ad absurdum. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The West Virginia Encyclopedia, Ken Sullivan, ed., West Virginia Humanities Council, Charleston (2006).
  2. ^ Otis K. Rice, Stephen W. Brown, West Virginia: A History, 2nd ed., University Press of Kentucky, Lexington (1993).
  3. ^ John Alexander Williams, West Virginia: A Bicentennial History, W.W. Norton & Company, New York (1976)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Connecticut_panhandle&oldid=1219836344"