User talk:ModernDayTrilobite

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Kind regards. For starters, Happy New Year. I wanted to ask if you could reconsider your close at the 2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis article. From what I gather, WP:NPOV was one of the main reasons for deciding on the move; the nominator first argued this at Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute, but this was something hotly debated in its move discussion, and I explained that it is rather a descriptive title in Spanish for The Guianas region and the Essequibo River. Additionally, with three editors against and three editors in favor (without including the nominator), I think it's too close of a margin to determine a consensus. Best wishes and thanks in advance. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for reaching out! WP:NPOV was one of the reasons behind the move, but the WP:COMMONNAME argument also played a major role in my decision. Editors made a compelling case that the term Guayana Esequiba was not widely used by English-language sources - on this point, I was particularly swayed by DankJae's Google News results and Unknown Temptation's spot-check of different outlets. Both of these arguments were raised by several participants in the RM, which suggested to me that they had a relatively wide degree of acceptance.

As for the margins: you're correct that the sides were roughly numerically even, but I think a closer look at the arguments indicates a stronger consensus to move the page than the numbers alone would suggest. Andrew Davidson's oppose was built on the assertion that "Essequibo dispute" is the English-language COMMONNAME, so while he was opposed to the proposed title of "Guyana–Venezuela crisis", he nevertheless appeared to support moving away from the Guayana Esequiba title. Meanwhile, GreatLeader1945's argument (that articles on historical crises are titled with a single region name, essentially an appeal to WP:CONSISTENT) didn't strike me as very strong; the examples she cited were all cases where there's an established historiographical COMMONNAME, whereas this article required us to pull together a descriptive title based on more scattered references, so I was skeptical of that argument's applicability. (If we're examining the numbers, I think it's also worth considering CMD's comment, which supported a move away from Guayana Esequiba but was neutral on preferred destination.) Let me know if this answers your questions, or if there's anything else I can clarify. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was hoping to answer earlier, I'm so sorry about the delay. I understand better your rationale, thank you very much for the explanation. Although I still disagree with it, I think it's reasonable. At any rate, I was still thinking about start a move review and wanted to let you know beforehand, if that was alright. Many thanks in advance. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up! Even if we still do disagree, I'm glad I was able to make my thought process clearer. No objections from my end if you'd like to file an MRV. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your understanding :) I wanted to let you know I have started the move review on Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 February. Best wishes! --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading about the sites yesterday and was curious where to link them or whether I should write up an article myself -- great work! Citing (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather late out of the gate and far too late for a close review (which wouldn't amount to anything since the page didn't move anyway), but your close at Talk:Central Maine & Quebec Railway was badly faulty. It is not possible per WP:CONLEVEL policy for some essay from a wikiproject to contradict site-wide policies like WP:COMMONAME and site-wide guidelines like MOS:&. (In fact, the entire reason thr CONLEVEL policy was enacted was specifically to stop wikiprojects from trying to WP:POLICYFORK their own "anti-rules" against site-wide consensus to make magical exception for "their" pet topic. This is not some case of "maybe" or "kinda-sorta", it's exactly what that policy exists to prevent.) Any argument presented by commenters in the direction of obeying an essay over P&G requirements necessarily had to be given no weight because it was contrary to policy and practice. This is not BothSidesAreAlwaysEqualPedia. Non-admin closures are certainly permissible for many things, including RMs that do not require admin (or pagemover) permissions to effectuate, but they have to actually be compliant with policy. Specifically from WP:CLOSE: "closers are expected and required to exercise their judgment to ensure that any decision reached is within compliance of the spirit of Wikipedia policy ... The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments [including] those that flatly contradict established policy .... The closer ... is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant. ... As noted above, arguments that contradict policy are discounted."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention - you're absolutely right. I don't recall what led me to weigh the wikiproject's style guidance so heavily, but looking back on it, I agree that it was a clear error on my part. I'm not sure if there's anything concrete I could do about it at this point (I'd feel a bit dodgy revising a close I made months ago), but I wanted to at least confirm that I've received your message and have no intention of making a similar mistake again. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You got on the Upano Valley sites article super quickly, and I just want to thank you for it! GunnarBonk (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ModernDayTrilobite. Thank you for your work on The Great Bailout. Another editor, Tails Wx, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Great work on this article as whole; especially the critical reception section! This article definitely passes notability guidelines and is in great shape; therefore I've reviewed it. Happy editing! :)

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Tails Wx}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 01:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! I'm glad to hear you enjoyed the article. :) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Maps (Billy Woods and Kenny Segal album) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Joeyquism -- Joeyquism (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Maps (Billy Woods and Kenny Segal album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Maps (Billy Woods and Kenny Segal album) for comments about the article, and Talk:Maps (Billy Woods and Kenny Segal album)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Joeyquism -- Joeyquism (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice closing statement, quite detailed and explanatory. Thanks. Is it possible to add to it that the hatnote listing Mary, mother of Jesus is acceptable (it had support in the discussion and I, for one, did not weight in pro or con on the overall RM because the hatnote solved the concern)? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! I can add a quick note to my closing statement to mention that. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! The hatnote probably gives the RM the result it sought without changing the current primary topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A bit late, I know, but it's been playing on my mind and I keep seeing it. This, I'm afraid, looks a bit like a supervote to me. While Byron and Tennyson (who are usually known as Byron and Tennyson anyway rather than their names and/or titles) are exceptions, as listed at WP:NCPEER, almost every other peer except those notable before they were ennobled is at the standard naming. There was clearly no consensus to move (one vote for Louis Mountbatten, six for Lord Mountbatten, five for retaining the status quo). The supporters certainly did not have stronger arguments. The new name is frankly a bit weird and populist and completely inconsistent with thousands of other articles. The later RM for Talk:Edwina Mountbatten, Countess Mountbatten of Burma#Requested move 28 June 2024 was overwhelmingly closed as not moved with two editors saying that had they spotted this RM they too would have opposed. I think this needs to be revisited. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the feedback, but I'm not certain I see the case for changing the existing close. It's certainly true that the "Lord Mountbatten" title is inconsistent with many of the other articles on British peers, but consistency is just one of the five article titling criteria; the titling criteria also include recognizability (discussed via WP:COMMONNAME in the RM) and concision, both of which were leveled in support of "Lord Mountbatten". I don't see the case for the consistency argument being so overwhelmingly dominant that it would outweigh both of the others; if I had allowed consistency to trump the other criteria so thoroughly, I feel that that would have been the true supervote.

As to the WP:NCPEER question, I found it pertinent that other examples of exceptions were raised during the discussion (Lord Kelvin, Lord Dunsany, etc). Byron and Tennyson are certainly the clearest-cut examples of COMMONNAME-driven exceptions to NCPEER's standard guidance, but the presence of other demonstrated examples made a plausible case that exceptions to NCPEER don't necessarily require the alternate title to predominate at the level that Byron's does. Looking back now, I think the phrasing of my original close overstates things by saying that the "Lord Mountbatten" title would be outright "preferable" under NCPEER's exception clauses, but I still do think a sufficient argument was raised to make the exception at least permissible. Ultimately, different commenters presented different interpretations of how WP:NCPEER should be applied to this subject, and I don't think either interpretation significantly outweighed the other. Consequently, the balancing of titling criteria continues to hold as the key policy question at play.

Finally, the comparable support numbers for Lord Mountbatten vs. the full title don't inherently prevent a finding of consensus. When the numerical margins are narrow on a consensus-building discussion, that's where the weighting of arguments becomes most relevant to determine whether a consensus has emerged. I would have no objection to a new RM on the topic (consensus can always change, after all), but I continue to believe that my close of the RM gave fair consideration to all the lines of argument presented in that discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Respectfully, I would argue that WP:RMUM is being ignored. This was an undiscussed move and WP:RMUM is being ignored. A "no-consensus" would bring us back to the the original title, it would not keep the undiscussed title. Perhaps I could have made this clearer rather than attempting to re-litigate. However, x2 "no consensuses" does not endorse the undiscussed title. This is a concerning precedent, that undiscussed moves can be brute-forced into acceptance. Lastly, the onus should not be on me to defend the original title. The onus should be on the mover of the undiscussed title to defend their title. Simply because out of politeness, I did not revert the move during the MRV process as I was entitled to do, I was stuck with the burden of WP when the opposite should be true. I'm open to re-opening the RM in time, as you suggested, but if you have any other suggestions regarding moving forward, I would appreciate it. cheers MWFwiki (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC) MWFwiki (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that a "no consensus" result on the RM would bring us back to the original title. However, a lack of consensus at a move review does not inherently imply a lack of consensus in the underlying RM. Rather, a no-consensus result at MRV implies that the original closure should stand, as there was not a consensus to overturn it. In this case, the original closure found there to be a consensus at the RM; thus, because the MRV did not find a consensus to overturn the close, the finding of consensus at the RM remains in force. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 23:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original closer agrees that there was a "clear lack of consensus." Additionally, as you said, "You're correct that a 'no consensus' result on the RM would bring us back to the original title," well, that's what happened; the move should have been reverted immediately upon the following: "The result of the move request was: no consensus. No consensus as responses have noted that the existence of future variants might change the situation and demand we re-visit this move at a later date." This original "no consensus" finding should have reverted us immediately, and I should not have been forced to go through this procedure. The onus should have immediately been shifted onto the mover. Perhaps I did not make this point clearly in my MRV argument, and if that is the casse, I apologize.MWFwiki (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original close isn't really relevant to this discussion – it was vacated by the original closer, so its findings are no longer in force. Even if the article title had been moved to AIM-174 at that time, it would have been moved back after the second closer found consensus for AIM-174B. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

…it was vacated because I requested the article to be reverted, and instead this process was started… so, again; the close improperly failed to revert the article. This needs to be addressed. There would not have been a "second closer" if this was handled per WP. MWFwiki (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what you're looking for from me at this point. The core of your concern seems to be that the first closer reopened the RM rather than simply moving the article. This is something they have the discretion to do; according to their own statement on the matter, they did this because they felt that the argument you made on their talk page introduced new facts that could affect the course of the RM discussion. Reopening the RM is a pretty common practice in such situations, but if you feel the closer acted inappropriately in doing so, the place to raise it is on their talk page, not mine—and they might even agree with you, given that they've expressed regret for reopening the discussion. (I too agree that things would have likely been simplest if the article was just moved then.)

Nevertheless, the RM was reopened, more discussion took place after the reopening, and it was closed again. This time around, the closure found consensus for AIM-174B, and this was the closure that was in force when the move review was opened. Accordingly, the participants at the move review all analyzed the closure that was currently in force, not the one that had been vacated weeks earlier. My only role in this whole situation was to evaluate the move review discussion and determine whether the participants there had reached a consensus on whether the extant RM closure was appropriate. I could potentially reopen the move review if you feel I erred in that evaluation, but if your goal is to change the underlying article title, I think it'd be easier (and likelier to succeed) if you just start a new RM discussion from scratch. The move review languished without comments or closure for so long because people were reluctant to untangle the complicated discussion history and figure out their opinions; by starting a separate RM, you can cut the argument loose from all its bureaucracy and make your case much more straightforwardly. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 23:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, my point of contention is primarily what you pointed-out in the first half of your response. And again, it was only re-opened at MY "request." Everything that occurred post-initial RM should be invalidated. It's a clear breach and again, improperly shifted the onus onto me for months. I was not the person that executed an undiscussed move.

Regardless, I appreciate your time and input. I will raise this issue with the original closer. Otherwise, I'm going to take it further. Just to be clear (and I will make it clear), no, I'm not suggesting you necessarily erred and I am most definitely not implying any bad faith on your behalf (or anyone else's). Simply that all action post-original RM is invalid, as the article should have been reverted upon a no-consensus closure, and that the executor of the undiscussed move should have been the one moving for RM re-opening and/or a MRV. thanks again, sorry to take-up your time :)

MWFwiki (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support for the composer, with spring flowers and a songbird (in places)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing such a thorough rationale for your close of Talk:xkcd § Requested move 29 March 2025, much appreciated. ("Dispreferred"? You should write press releases. ;) ) Paradoctor (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say the same thing! I left that discussion after I felt I had contributed all I could to steer it and ensure participants understood the request and the tradeoffs. I was thrilled to see those tradeoffs accurately described in the closure notice. Thanks!

As for you, @Paradoctor - I know we've had some communications blunders, and I couldn't agree more that it was tiresome, but I hope you don't think ill of me. I think we can both learn from that interaction to define terms unambiguously when it becomes apparent that they are being interpreted differently by different people. I have a much greater appreciation for why every technical and legal document starts with Definitions! NeatNit (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You stayed civil and responsive throughout, even when the temperatur was high, that's apt to make me think the opposite of "ill" of you.

And if our interaction gave you an appreciation for the ambiguities running through all natural-language communication, then it was effort well spent. No worries here. Paradoctor (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have given weight to the argument that this title falls to MOS:GEOCAPS. This is clearly a pettifogging argument that should have been WP:DISCARDED. A simplistic definition of a proper noun/name is that it is the name of a particular person, place or thing. A fuller definition, such as our own article or this definition, is that a proper noun is not descriptive. As stated in debate: While specificity of referent is a property of proper names, it is not a defining property, since specificity is also achieved by use of the definite article (the). The notion that GEOCAPS applies was only introduce after the penultimate VOTE!. It was debated and garnered no support. The ultimate VOTE! did not even tacitly acknowledge it. The assertion that GEOCAPS was tacitly acknowledged by other editors is not supported. Where they have referred to it as being a proper noun it is reasonably apparent they have done so from the view of the simplistic definition. However, WP relies on evidence of usage and not definition to determine what should be capped. To the statement: per MOS:GEOCAPS—the term "Galactic Center" refers to a specific location within the Milky Way and therefore meets the guideline's standard for capitalization, one needs to consider the spirit and intent of the guidance evidenced through the examples: These are treated like other proper names and take an initial capital letter on all major elements: Japan, Mount Everest, Gulf of Tonkin. Terms for types of places and features do not take capitals: the town hall; the capital city; an ocean; the savannah; karst topography. Japan, Everest and Tonkin are not descriptive but the capitalisation of mount and gulf are determined by usage. The town hall, the capital city and the savannah all have specific referents by virtue of the definite article - as does the galactic center per the lead of the article. GEOCAPS specifically links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Geographical items and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). There is nothing that would suggest that the pertinent guidance applies to a descriptive name (galactic center) except by virtue of usage in sources or that the guidance is intended to apply to the celestial domain, for which we have separate guidance. Where you state: ...arguing that the capitalization served to distinguish the Milky Way's galactic center from others, is capitalisation for distinction that explicitly falls to MOS:SIGNIFCAPS - a matter specifically raised in discussion and which we don't do. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your very good close. The Galactic Center of the Milky Way is surely a geographical place (although I wouldn't want to visit). Walls of text are also a geographical place, but not subject to MOS:GEOCAPS, unlike the Galactic Center. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, your comment has two main arguments in respect to my close, so I'll aim to address each one individually:

• First, re: whether it is appropriate to "read into" a !vote as being implicitly backed by a policy or guideline. I believe this is an appropriate and normal part of evaluating a discussion. The policies and guidelines give us direction as to which considerations to prioritize over others, but they are also intended as documentation of our values as an encyclopedia, and arguments that are aligned with those values should be considered even if the speaker doesn't fish out the exact policy name that described them. To use an example, someone who supports an RM because it "removes ambiguity" is clearly gesturing to WP:PRECISE, even if they don't realize it themselves. I'm not trying to say this scenario was as clear-cut as my example, but—when one person cites a policy or guideline in making their case ("GEOCAPS holds that we should capitalize this because...") and others make substantially the same argument but without alluding to the policy/guideline—I believe it to be reasonable to treat the same level of policy backing as applying to the other comments too. Of course, this approach hinges upon the actual policy interpretation being correct, which leads us to the other point...
• Re: the underlying interpretation of GEOCAPS. My responsibility as a closer is not to impose my own interpretation of any guideline but to reflect the interpretation that prevailed among the discussion participants; I shouldn't be overriding their interpretations unless they're obviously faulty, such as an argument citing WP:PRECISE to support clear overprecision. While there were certainly debates in the RM over how to interpret the guidelines that came into play (CELESTIALBODIES, GEOCAPS, SIGNIFCAPS), I don't feel any of the arguments from either side were clearly erroneous enough to merit outright discarding, so my role was to compare the interpretations on offer and gauge which interpretations were more strongly supported by the participants at large. (This does necessarily involve some consideration of numerical support, but I aim to make sure it's not a simple headcount by according additional weight to participants who are able to cogently lay out arguments for why their preferred interpretation should hold.)

In summary, when taking this approach, I feel that it was within reasonable discretion to weigh the arguments as I did. I think a no-consensus closure could also be a plausible interpretation of how the different arguments balanced against each other, and I would be willing to shift my close to "no consensus" if people feel that that more closely captures the relative weight of the different strands of argument, but I don't feel that the discussion could be reasonably described as having reached a consensus to move. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And why aren't you teaching a class in how to write up a closing analysis? Your close seems correct, as the fact that the Galactic Center is a defined 'place' gives adequate weight to the use of MOS:GEOCAPS. Understanding that the counter arguments in favor of lowercasing the page to a name that would fit any galaxy's center if further Wikipedia pages become written - and given the technology and discoveries the James Webb Space Telescope has already made, new pages may occur - also brings a bit of commonsense into the mix. Thanks for the time you take in presenting thoughtful closes. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of the oppose comments, two out of four specifically make an a priori assertion that it is a proper name and a third, that it the formal name. None of these offer a substantive reason or evidence to support the assertion consistent with the prevailing P&G. They are a personal opinion falling to WP:DISCARD. In your example, using the word precision rather than a direct link (WP:PRECISE) is not a great leap. However, just invoking a particular piece of P&G does not give weight to a comment. Weight comes for establishing how a particular guideline applies to a particular case and that the conclusion is consistent with what the guideline actually says. Many that might cite precision to support their view actually argue for WP:OVERPRECISION - ie the P&G is being misconstrued. A closer is expected to discern that the P&G actually contradicts the argument being made - particularly if it is refuted in the debate as being incorrect. In this case though, it would be a substantial leap of faith to assume or imply that any of these comments (apart from Randy) is making even the vaguest allusion to GEOCAPS. All four comments assert capitalisation for distinction - which is flatly contradicted by MOS:SIGNIFCAPS as a rationale for capitalisation on WP. Randy's argument is essentially: Milky Way's [galactic centre], which, like Moon, is uppercased per MOS:GEOCAPS and naming convention. But each galaxy has a galactic center, so to differentiate the Milky Way's from the others (like the uppercased Moon) it is a proper name. Setting aside that the Moon is capitalise because of CELESTIALBODIES not GEOCAPS, the argument is that because it is a specific place, it is a proper name capitalised for distinction. However, as explained in the debate, specificity of referent is not a defining property of proper names and the examples at GEOCAPS bares this out - eg the savannah has a specific referent but is not capitalised. There is more to GEOCAPS (and what is a proper name) than just having a specific referent. The spirit and intent of the GEOCAPS is being misconstrued. Per WP:DISCARD: Closers are also required to exercise their judgment to ensure that any decision complies with the spirit of Wikipedia policy. As you say, it was convincingly shown that there isn't a usage-based case for uppercasing the term. The rationales given in the close appear to try way too hard to give weight to a pettifogging argument to overturn an argument for which the consensus is otherwise very clear. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had to look up the word "perttifogging". For readers in the same boat I was: "Pettifogging refers to giving too much attention to small details that are not important. It is an old-fashioned term and is often used disapprovingly to describe behavior that focuses on insignificant matters or is meanly petty." The 'small detail' here is that the Galactic Center, in astronomical and scientific circles, describes an exact place. Something you can put your finger on. Thus it fits MOS:GEOCAPS. Pettifogging, as defined, is not used correctly here. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When all's said and done, I think we ultimately have incompatible interpretations of the underlying policies. I evidently read MOS:GEOCAPS as having a broader mandate than you do (and conversely, read MOS:SIGNIFCAPS as having a narrower one), and I think that dichotomy is what's at the root of our disagreement here. To my eye, the participants in the RM drew a clear semantic distinction between a general "galactic center" and the specific location "Galactic Center" within the Milky Way—and because of this semantic distinction, I don't believe that SIGNIFCAPS covers this situation in the way you've been describing. Meanwhile, I don't feel that the Galactic Center being an example of a galactic center necessarily precludes GEOCAPS from applying. I agree that it's necessary to ensure compliance with the spirit of policy, but doing so becomes a complex question when we're not in agreement about what the spirit of policy is in the first place.

Admittedly, my view has shifted slightly since my initial close, such that I think a no-consensus closure is probably more appropriate than a consensus-against-moving. While I still think that the GEOCAPS argument is sound, you've also highlighted a salient point that any questions around the policy basis for or against uppercasing the term are ultimately competing against a mixed usage pattern, with the result that I think the usage argument and the GEOCAPS argument counterweight each other enough to prevent either from becoming clearly dominant. The reason I'm just describing this shift and not yet editing my actual close is because I imagine, if you're still looking to overcome the underlying differences in our policy interpretations, an MRV will probably resolve our debate more decisively than further one-on-one conversation would. Changing my close shortly before a likely MRV seems like it would needlessly muddy the waters of that discussion, so I'm happy to hold off on making any edits to my close until I know whether you'd like to pursue the MRV route or not. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 04:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are actually going to edit your close please consider adding more weight to the the Simbad uppercasing brought forward near the end of the discussion. Instead of a minor point, Wikipedia asks us to consult Simbad in situations like this. When the editor did so they arguably, and correctly, cemented uppercasing. In addition, and importantly, if you are accepting new arguments like those above, here's a new one which further places Galactic Center uppercasing in place: Wikipedia's naming conventions tell us to first and foremost consult IAU for anything related to galaxies. Here is what IAU has to say about it. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You would give more weight to GEOCAPS but less weight to SIGNIFCAPS, which raises several questions.

1. If I said that I am going to: Japan; Mount Everest; the Gulf of Tonkin, Boston (which could be one of two dozen odd places); or, the town hall, the capital city or the savannah; in each case, I am referring to and going to a definite specific place. In the latter, this is because of the definite article (the). How is it (why does) the galactic centre (of the Milky Way) fall to the former examples and not the latter? What in GEOCAPS makes the distinction clear?
2. SIGNICAPS states: This includes over-capitalization for signification, i.e. to try to impress upon the reader the importance or specialness of something in a particular context. Those that oppose the move assert a need to capitalise to distinguish the Milky Way's galactic centre from that of other galaxies. Isn't this a case of impress[ing] upon the reader the importance or specialness of our galaxy's centre? Capitalising for distinction is inherently using caps to denote the specialness of the Milky Way's centre compared with the centre of other galaxies. How is it that, capitalisation for distinction does not fall to SIGNIFCAPS in a way that the assertion is flatly contradicted by the P&G and should be discarded?
3. Where an argument is made that caps are necessary for distinction, this has been effectively rebutted: While an argument is made that there is a distinction in capitalisation between the galactic centre of our galaxy and that for other galaxies, this is not bourn out by evidence, where the majority of references are to our galaxy [made in the context of a review of google scholar]; and, Per the actual evidence indicated, it is far from always capped in sources in the context you indicate and is not a proper name that we would cap per NCCAPS, where the indicated evidence would be google scholar. To paraphrase this a question: If capitalisation to distinguish the Milky Way's centre is necessary, why then is it that a good majority of authors writing about the Milky Way's centre see no need to capitalise galactic centre?

Cinderella157 (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: GEOCAPS, I think the fundamental distinction is whether a given appellation is an established name of an entity or just a descriptor of it. Sometimes, the name of a location can overlap with one of its descriptors—London's Natural History Museum is just one of many natural history museums—in a way that blurs those lines. You ask what in GEOCAPS makes the distinction clear, but honestly, I don't think there is a clear distinction drawn for these particular cases; we have to evaluate the evidence on a case-by-case basis to gauge whether there's a proper noun or not.

Re: SIGNIFCAPS, I disagree that capitalizing for distinction is attempting to indicate the importance or specialness of what's being distinguished—it's simply indicating that the term covers a meaning distinct from that of its lowercase version. The example given in SIGNIFCAPS is of a capitalized "Scientific Consensus", where the caps are solely being used to identify the term as a significant piece of terminology within its passage. In this example, a Scientific Consensus is not identified as being anything different from a lowercased scientific consensus, and so the caps are purely for signification. By contrast, supporters of the capitalized "Galactic Center" made the case that there did exist a semantic distinction to justify the capitalization.

Ultimately, though, while I wanted to clarify my thinking, I still can't help but feel like our views on this policy are too divergent to really be bridged. In the interest of not going around in circles any further, I'm going to vacate my close and reopen the RM. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing the close resolves the key issue. However, you may or may not realise a very pertinent point you have made in reply: but honestly, I don't think there is a clear distinction drawn for these particular cases; we have to evaluate the evidence on a case-by-case basis to gauge whether there's a proper noun or not - which takes us back to the evidence of usage. What is a proper name is something generally poorly understood since many rely on the simplistic definition. A true proper name is not descriptive and unfortunately, people are inclined to categorise all of the things that are conventionally capitalised in English as proper names. For example, we conventionally capitalise the names of businesses and institution such as London's Natural History Museum, even though such names are often descriptive. Whether the title of a work (eg a book) is a proper name is debatable. There are many books printed with the same name and we would use the indefinite article: I was reading a book called "To Kill a Mocking Bird". The intellectual property is abstract, not concrete and cognitive development studies relate that proper names are associated with the concrete. Rather than categorising titles of works as proper nanmes (even though the title might be quite descriptive of content), it is perhaps better to say that we use title case for the titles of works. Place/feature names like: London, Pacific, Tonkin and Nile may have an etymology but are not descriptive, though they sometimes have an associated class descriptor such as: ocean, gulf or river, which is sometimes near always or sometimes much less often capped. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) acknowledges these descriptors should not always be capitalised. In some ways, it begs the question of whether it is galactic or centre which is the descriptor here, but both are. Something like the Rocky Mountains are inherently descriptive but it is still an arbitrary name, in as much as it might just as easily have been given a different name (eg what if the Pacific had been stormy when Magellan sailed into it?). My working hypothesis on the capitalisation of these descriptors is that we tend to translate cartographic conventions into prose. SIGNIFCAPS refers to terms of art, which are part of the jargon of any field of study or occupation. Such descriptive terms often have a more specific meaning than denoted by the descriptive phrase and are often distinguished by capitalisation. This is directly analogous to capitalisation of galactic centre to denote the centre of the Milky Way, rather than any other galaxy. WP:SSF addresses this use of capitalisation and that essay is supported by citation. The understanding of vocational jargon as a barrier to learning was part of my studies as a vocational educator. This isn't so much to convince you but you may be interested in a different perspective. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you didn't answer my added information above, especially the IAU link which, alongside the Simbad focus brought late in the discussion, should have addressed your concerns about maybe-maybe not. Reopening the discussion seems to be giving into the noisiest bell, but on the other hand it does give me the chance to introduce IAU and the galaxy guideline into the mix. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my original close, I hesitated to place too much weight on the capitalization in Simbad, since I thought a fair concern was raised in the discussion as to whether Simbad uses sentence case or title case for titling its entries. A title-case source won't be much help for determining whether a term is capitalized or not in sentence case, after all. That said, the reopened discussion will hopefully allow editors to discuss Simbad in more depth; if that further discussion leads us to a consensus, whatever that consensus may be, then it will have been a success in my book. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]