Talk:Seattle General Strike

Untitled

Ok, I expanded the page after planning on doing so for quite some time. My only worry is the quotes: I have a mix of italics and quotation marks and I can't decide which one looks better or is more proper. --Tothebarricades 02:50, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

The controls themselves

Other than in the introduction, there seems to be nothing about the wage controls themselves. It's a big hole in the article. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 6 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move after a month of discussion. Cúchullain ^t/c 12:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Seattle General Strike → Seattle general strike – Most better sources (e.g. books) don't capitalize this. Per MOS:CAPS, we don't capitalize where unnecessary. Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Evidence

Sources as summarized by Google n-grams (also these n-grams) are mostly lower case. Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The phrase in which caps often occur, as shown by the n-grams link, "of the Seattle General Strike", is often due to mentions of the "History Committee of the Seattle General Strike Committee"; these counts don't suggest capitalization in general. Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Survey and Discussion

• Support as nom – per the evidence and guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I can't find any ngrams for Seattle General Strike Committee, and generally caps seems to have gotten more popular[1]. --В²C ☎ 22:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In any case the current title is certainly commonly used in reliable sources[2]. What's the good reason argument that overcomes the WP:TITLECHANGES hurdle? --В²C ☎ 23:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
    • WP:TITLECHANGES is about controversial titles. Nobody is really discussing a different title here, just a simple style fix to conform with guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The four-gram is not so common as to make the cut, but it influences the trigram counts, as you can see if you click through to the book search. In any case, lowercase is clearly more common in sources, as the n-gram links show. Dicklyon (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Come on, Dick. That's because you put the "the" article in your n-gram search. We're looking for name usage, which usually is without a the: [3]. --В²C ☎ 18:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Come on, B2C. The only places you find "Seattle General Strike" without "the" in front of it is in titles and headings, which are usually in title case. These counts don't bear on the question of whether it would be capitalized in sentence case, which is what we need to know for the article title since WP style is to set titles in sentence case, not title case. See more detailed n-grams. Dicklyon (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support—I find Dicklyon's arguments and evidence convincing. What is the issue with "the"? Tony (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Tony1, why is this evidence not convincing? --В²C ☎ 18:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    • See my response to you above. When using n-grams, it is useful to try to use patterns that minimize contamination by titles, since the issue is whether a term is treated as a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Contamination by titles? ROTFLOL! You want to exclude title common usage in reliable sources in the process of determining common usage for the purpose of deciding a title? Oh, that's rich. --В²C ☎ 17:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

B2C, there must be a basic misunderstanding here for you to respond like that. There's not much point in considering proportions of upcased vs downcased initials if a good proportion of the sample includes text that uses generic title case by default, no matter what. The practice is clear only by considering case in the main text, not titles and subtitles. Tony (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Please explain. Why would we not use title case in our, you know, titles? Especially if all other reliable source articles on this topic use this name in title case in their titles? --В²C ☎ 16:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:TITLEFORMAT. "Titles are written in sentence case. ... Words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text." ╠╣uw [talk] 19:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I see the ink is barely dry on that insanity[4]. Let's use sentence case, not title case, for our frickin' TITLES? Are you kidding me??? Okay, I understand for topics in which reliable sources also don't use title case in their titles of articles about the same subject - but when standard usage in reliable sources for titles of articles about the given subject is to use title case, so should we. Of course. We should not be ignoring reliable source usage in titles when deciding how to title our articles. --В²C ☎ 21:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

B2C, we always use sentence case in article titles, and have been for like over a decade, I think ever since we switched away from CamelCase. Why, I don't know, but that is what we do. Titles in Wikipedia are lowercase except for proper nouns, etc, etc: that is what "sentence case" means. The ink isn't wet on this, we've been doing this for like over a decade. That change you link is not a material change to TITLEFORMAT, it is merely a redundant rephrasing of the text immediately prior. The point here being that when we pick the case to use for our titles we do not chose the case that other works use for their titles, we choose the case they use for running text, i.e. what they think is correct for sentence case. For this subject, that appears to be lowercase ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Reading through this thread I'm finding it difficult to take B2C's comments seriously. Gathering evidence requries clear, open techniques with clear, open purposes. These have all been explained, but they're met with sarcasm and disbelief. Please be reasonable. Tony (talk) 07:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support – the evidence seems pretty straightforward; this phrase isn't usually capitalized in sources, so generally we wouldn't, either. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, based on the data and, more importantly, the trend since 1970 of ancient 2008 ngrams (my granddad told me of those, they were once reliable but the years, alas, have taken their toll), from the sources listed on the page (External sources, etc.), and from search engine searches which show the upper-case to be well within the mainstream and recognized as a proper name, the upper-case use on Wikipedia remains proper and within the guidelines. Besides, even while the strike was going on, the people organizing it worked from a 'General Strike committee', so sources were already capitalizing it even as it was occurring. And I've asked this many times without an answer - why did ngrams stop in 2008??? Thanks. Randy Kryn 10:56 20 March, 2015 (UTC)

  I think the point Randy's making about ngrams is that while lowercase is more common in books prior to 2008, the fact that we have no idea if that continued, went up, down, or what in the last 6–7 years means we should completely ignore the 95 years of books before that. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  Nope. The point I was making was that since 1970 the subject is capitalized in ngrams, and then they stop in 2008. Randy Kryn 18:54 20 March, 2015 (UTC)

  The main trouble with n-grams is not that they stop around the time that wikipedia starts influencing usage in books, but rather that they count uses in titles, headings, citations, and such that are in title case, and don't help much to distinguish that from what we need to know, which is usage in sentence context. Your search in particular is designed to pick up all titles, headings, and citations, while if you include lowercase "the" in front you pick up mostly things in sentence context, and it becomes much more clear that lowercase still dominates 2:1. Dicklyon (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose because it is a proper name. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 19:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  You may think of it that way, but it appears that it isn't normally treated as such in published English writing. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  Go back to third grade and learn what a proper noun is. I don't have to bandwagon because some other people don't know what a proper noun is. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 00:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

  In the ngrams the capitalization of the name became more popular as years went by, and in 1970 became the most used type and held that position until ngrams went extinct in 2008. Seems it's normally treated as a proper noun by the page's own External links and hundreds of other sources on search engines as well. Sometimes a strike is just a strike, but other strikes are surely Strikes. Randy Kryn 11:14 23 March, 2015 (UTC)

  There's some discussion just above about how your analysis is lacking here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  And not all the external links do capitalize it, even though it is common for web content to capitalize their topic in their text. Dicklyon (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – This is a proper name. This article is about the specific "Seattle General Strike", not about general strikes in Seattle. RGloucester — ☎ 04:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

  You may think of it that way, but it appears that it isn't normally treated as such in published English writing. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

  ...until 1970, when its upper-case usage overtook lower-case usage. Randy Kryn 19:08 25 March, 2015 (UTC)

  Others have pointed out the problems with your analysis already; if you keep repeating it would you please address that? See just above. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Why is this not a simple technical request? The ngrams show a sizeable proportion downcased. End of story, see opening to MOSCAPS. It's wasting editors' time to disrupt and obstruct normal processes. Tony (talk) 07:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

  Alright, This old ngram shows that even in days-gone-by, 2008, upper-case was a common name. The argument that this ngram doesn't include the word 'the' is counter-weighted by the fact that the lower-case in this ngram was prevalent for decades and then upper-case seems to become the common name. Randy Kryn 12:17 6 April, 2015 (UTC)

  "upper-case seems to become the common name"—how so? Tony (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please fix vandalism from February 4th

I tried to revert vandalism from 4th and 5th February edits but it won't let me for some reason (some Wikipelli thing reverts my edit). The start of the article should say "an unsuccessful" and not "a successful". Someone please fix this. 77.222.27.61 (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Based on what in the article can we determine that the strike was successful (or unsuccessful)? —C.Fred (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It says in the article that the result was arrests of workers and start of Red Scare. Original article says "unsuccessful", someone vandalized a few days ago. 77.222.27.61 (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)