DC Vertigo – Relist. Since the closer has agreed to have it relisted, there is no need to keep this MRV open any longer. — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Move had more objection than support, including suggestions to wait and see if the new version of the name became common, and an alternate proposal (Vertigo Comics) which arguably better satisfies WP:NATURAL but hadn't been discussed yet. Even the proposer says that move "was done prematurely and after little discussion". Closer justified it based on their own (flawed) analysis, not consensus of discussion participants. For example, closer did a one-sided "quick search" to see if anyone was using the new version, ignoring research showing that the old version was still in general use (which WP:NAMECHANGES says should be considered), and failed to consider that much of that new-version usage this found came from press release reprints and excerpts. Closer has worthwhile arguments, but they would have been better presented for discussion, not imposed as verdict.) –Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to relist or perhaps no consensus, with a trout to the closer. Had I seen I probably would have relisted it, could've also closed it as no consensus, but there's not a MOVED result there. The closer should heed the advice of Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Consensus: "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy." WP:COMMONNAME is a perfectly valid argument made; so is that of WP:NATURALDIS. The closer states "WP:NATURALDIS is clear about "Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names." - but it is also clear that NATURALDIS is merely one way of disambiguation; nowhere is it stated that if there is any sort of NATURALDIS option, that must be used; what is actually said is that the WP:CRITERIA must be weighed in deciding upon the disambiguation (and WP:NCDAB says that "Natural disambiguation that is unambiguous, commonly used, and clear is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation" - however people are disputing that the natural disambiguator is commonly used).
The closer's extended justification "Simply put, per WP:NAMECHANGES we give extra weight to sources published after the name change, and my own quick check suggested that the new name is well-accepted (news search). Further, the new official name "DC Vertigo" is unambiguous, which additionally supports the move per WP:NATURAL." are fine as arguments to make a move, but fail to actually evaluate the discussion in any way. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Trout accepted; in retrospect, I probably jumped a gun here and did some supervoting. Relist would have been a much wiser course of action. To save further discussion here, I accept reopen and relist. Note, however, that I also moved Category:DC Vertigo along, which would be inconvenient to revert immediately, so I suggest it stays there until the RM is closed one way or another. No such user (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
World Heritage Site – Relisted. Obviously I am WP:INVOLVED here, and I would have preferred to see this MRV conclude, because I think the close was sound. But then again there's also no real harm in a relist to further discuss the issues, and the closer has agreed to relist, so no point keeping this MRV open at this stage. — Amakuru (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Despite the numerical advantage of 6:3 for the move, I think that the closer has failed to evaluate the evidence and policy-based arguments properly. Judging from the subsequent discussion on Frayae's talk page and the extended rationale she provided, I came to conclusions that:
The closer and several posters applied Wikipedia:Common-style fallacy: just because a particular style (capitalization, punctuation, etc.) might be more prevalent on the web, it does not mean it should be automatically applied to Wikipedia, which has its own Manual of Style. It has been a long-term tradition in RMs that MOS recommendations should be overridden just in case when reliable sources overwhelmingly use a particular style.
The evidence has not been evaluated properly: while ngrams provided may favor "Site" over "site", it is quite normal to use title-case form for a particular WHS, and title-case also prevails in, well, titles. Even ngrams show that the form "World Heritage site" has been in substantial use in books, and Espoo has provided evidence that it's used by Unesco itself. I reject the closer's subsequent argument that it constitutes an "official wording" – no, it just constitutes a mainstream style guides for general-audience book publishing. (I can provide further evidence that high-quality publications use "site" when referring to WHS in general).
The ample evidence that "World Heritage site" is not a proper noun, therefore WP:LOWERCASE should be applied. seems to have been downplayed
Last but not the least, A close should generally follow the numerical difference (as later stated by the closer). Well, this can be interpreted in a plethora of ways so I won't hold it against the closer, but this could only be a rough guide all other things being equal; per WP:NOTAVOTE strength of the policy-based arguments is what matters. No such user (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All the relevant reasoning from myself regarding the close are on my talk page. The most important points are in the green boxes for ease of reading. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Uphold the close, a fine example of analyzing an RM, and the closer's talk page discussion provides even more reasoning for this valid close. The title had been stable up until an recent RM which only two people participated in. I was one of them, and I wrongly agreed to move the long term title. It was only after it was closed that I looked up the n-gram and saw the overwhelming support for upper-casing, and changed my mind, and then read all of the good policy and guideline reasoning articulated by editors during this RM. I thank all involved for providing a chance to rectify an error. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Uphold close per Randy and closer's additional rationales as linked. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - (I was the nominator of the RM in question). The closer has given a good account of why they closed the way they did in the link above, the RM had the numbers in support, and I think my rationale in nominating it was sound. The issue of titles being capitalised is a correct one, but this is dealt with through the ngram I presented which specifically examines the "World Heritage Sites are" or "World Heritage Site is" phrasing, something that we commonly look at to gauge usage in running text rather than titles. And in this case, the ngram satisfied the condition set at MOS:CAPS, namely "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia". [this n-gram as well as The ngram shows a substantial majority. Several oppose votes cited PDFs released by the world heritage org itself, but these were essentially WP:OFFICIALNAMES arguments, and did not address the ngram showing independent book sources preferring capitalisation. Finally, it should be pointed out that this RM reverses one made in the other direction just a couple of months ago, which though unanimous, had only three participants, one of whom (Randy) has since changed their mind. Prior to that RM the title was stable at World Heritage Site from the article's creation in 2002. — Amakuru (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (reopen). There is far too much still to thrash out. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is decidedly not a proper noun. It is also decidedly not a proper name. RM discussions should adhere to the facts as written in mainspace articles, and if they are wrong, fix them. There is a bit of conflict in following source usage versus not following source styling. In the discussion, someone argued that COMMONNAME doesn’t include source styling. This is a styling question. It wasn’t resolved. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a proper noun, as sources illustrate, and that a couple of users who seem to have objections to how proper nouns are used in the English language think their personal quirks should override the MOS, actual English grammar and a consensus of editors is...unimpressive. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"the term noun is used for a class of single words" and so on. If this is not true, correct the article. Wikipedia processes should not be divorced from Wikipedia mainspace content, including the definitions of terms such as "proper noun" and "proper name". I agree there is dispute and tension, but facts in mainspace should be treated as fact by backroom processes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
re "Wikipedia processes should not be divorced from Wikipedia mainspace content" there is no such policy, nor have I ever even heard that suggestion before. Our MOS is not bound by content decisions made in individual articles. And adding "decidedly" to your opinion doesn't make it any less your opinion. Reliable sources capitalise in running text in a substantial majority of cases, and per MOS:CAPS that means we should capitalise. No need to consult any mainspace articles there. — Amakuru (talk) 08:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
“Decidedly” means that, according to the article, there is no debate. “World heritage site” is not a noun, it is not a proper noun, and it is not a proper name. Verifiability not truth means use verifiable meanings, some people are making up their own meanings of nouns and names. I’m not sure if your first three sentences are making a substantive point.
Your last two sentences are fine. Yes, reliable sources capitalise in running text. What exactly does MOSCAPS say? My problem with the RM is that that line of argument didn’t dominate, that instead there was so much spurious stuff about the thing being a proper noun/name. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MOSCAPS’ lede contains “... words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.” That’s persuasive. Was it pointed out in the RM? I don’t think you made that point at all. Instead, you made an erroneous statement “is treated as a proper name by reliable sources”, erroneously equating “capitalises” with “treats like a proper name”. The discussion derailed because of that. I think this example makes that case that more than just proper nouns may be capitalised in running text. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MOSCAPS was not argued. I formed the conclusion from reading the discussion that the consensus was that "World Heritage Site" was a brand name of UNESCO and thus disregarded much of the argument regarding the correct application of proper nouns. Partly influencing my thoughts is the fact that "World Heritage" is not the name of an organisation or unique entity, and therefore is not itself a proper noun either. Although this ngram shows that it is the most common style. UNESCO in official documents (but not their site) always capitalise both "World Heritage" and "World Heritage Site". — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MOSCAPS was argued: In fact, according to our MOS, the term should be entirely lowercase, i.e. "world heritage site", but we can make an exception because "World Heritage site" is in fact a shorthand way of saying "World Heritage List site".[1] I don't think anyone argued it was a "brand name" of Unesco; it was hinted to by Amakuru. Even if it was a "brand", the brand names are "World Heritage", and "World Heritage List". And Unesco has been careful with their typography: [2]Bestselling guide to all 1,007 UNESCO World Heritage sites. Fully updated to include the latest sites added to the World Heritage List in June 2014. The List is managed by the World Heritage Committee and each site is judged under strict criteria - only the world's most spectacular and extraordinary sites make it on to the List. (emphasis mine). I find it perverse to argue that we should ignore presentation by Unesco because they "own" the "brand", when they are just being very professional. Just like BBC [3], Britannica [4] or NYTimes [5]. While raw searches and ngrams are useful to an extent, we look into the most prestigious publications for our style guidance. No such user (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. What this essentially boils down to is: Should we be following UNECSO's lead, thus using the correct term "World Heritage site", or should we be relying on ngram data, thus using the perpetuated incorrect term "World Heritage Site"? The proper noun argument is largely irrelevant because UNESCO, who originated the term, clearly do not believe that it is a proper noun, otherwise they would have used a capital S in the first place! I have written to UNESCO again to find out their reasoning, whether or not I actually get a reply is anyone's guess (I didn't last time I wrote). They perhaps think this is too petty to waste any time on...
However, if it does end up relying on the "proper noun or not proper noun" argument, I would say it is definitely not a proper noun. The word 'site' is a common noun. A "World Heritage site" is a 'site' that has been placed on the "World Heritage List" (proper noun, as it is the name of the list). Thus the 'World Heritage' in "World Heritage site" is being used attributively. What type of site is it? It's a 'World Heritage' site, just as you might say it's a 'London Underground' station, i.e. a 'station' (common noun) on the 'London Underground System' (proper noun, name of the system).
We should concentrate on interpreting the MOS.
WP:CONSISTENCY says "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject" – surely the most reliable source in this case is UNESCO (come on people!?). Here are 4 examples of "World Heritage site" on their website:
→ (I've just noticed Frayae's comment above: "UNESCO in official documents (but not their site) always capitalise both "World Heritage" and "World Heritage Site". — Please can you provide some evidence of these official documents Frayæ, thanks.)
WP:COMMONNAME says "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)..." This makes no mention of ngrams which sample the plethora of unreliable sources out there, which have perpetuated a myth. We need to find a sample of independent, reliable English-language sources (that use the term "World Heritage Site/site" obviously) and find out which term is used by a significant majority of them.
WP:CONSISTENCY also says "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." This does not mean consistency across the internet! It means consistency across Wikipedia articles, therefore it just means whatever we decide, we must implement it across all pages that use the term, so it has no bearing on any decision we make here. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This was not argued in the RM, but after the close I have noticed that much UNESCO material actually uses "World Heritage Site" capitalised in official documentation and on it's site.
The official documents are harder to find. Go to http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1557/documents/ and download any of the documents listed there, for this example, the "Nomination Text". Using a search tool, you will see that "World Heritage Site" is consistently capitalised, even where the usage is generic.
I have not made a comparison on whether UNESCO using upper or lower case more frequently. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The closer has said “formed the conclusion from reading the discussion that the consensus was that "World Heritage Site" was a brand name of UNESCO”. “Brand” was not mentioned. Overturn the NAC WP:Supervote. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The correct construction of proper nouns was argued extensively, even if no one used the specific term "brand" in the discussion it should be noted that participants linked several times to Proper noun which includes the brand name section as part of it's explanation on how a name can be capitalised in this situation. I assumed that linking to the article meant that the article was supposed to support the discussion, as with linking to policy documents.
There are significant amounts of missing evidence and incorrect assumptions made by all the participants. The longer I argue about this the more involved I get, and the more my own opinion takes precedence over what I thought at the time. Since the close I have re-read the RM several times. Examined further evidence of my own. Read numerous additional statements by the participants, some of which are introducing new argument. And made various statements of my own. I am now arguing about UNESCO evidence not even mentioned in the RM at all.
I think the best outcome would be overturn, because that would allow additional evidence and arguments to be brought into the RM before it is then re-closed. I could then join in properly, rather than my current arguments where I am completely ignoring WP:MRNOT by effectively continuing the RM here. I think the line between when I stopped explaining my close and started arguing to justify the outcome is sometime before this MR, when this matter was still on my talk page.
I see nothing but an exact split along the lines of the RM, everyone who likes the result I closed it to is endorsing, everyone who thinks otherwise is saying to overturn. As there is still much to debate, and in the spirit of reducing the time spent arguing about my personal actions, I suggest that this is Overturned to relist with an administrator closer. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think an NACer reverting their close is very much to their credit. It would be good if you contributed to the RM, you are talking a lot of sensible stuff. For such a simple question, it is very complex. I am undecided, not sure how I would !vote. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
