The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

At this time, after extended discussion which appears to have wound up, the following split is manifest.

With respect to the proposed move of Illinois Coal Wars to Illinois coal wars, seven editors favor the proposed move: Dicklyon,  SMcCandlish, TonyTheTiger, ErikHaugen, Rjensen, Tony1 and Blueboar; and three editors oppose the proposed move (in the course of generally opposing all of the proposed moves): Randy Kryn, AjaxSmack, and Kamek98. This is also the title for which the least amount of evidence was presented, and (of some interest) the only plural title, suggesting a series of events in a class rather than something perceived as a single event. There is a slim consensus for this proposal, and therefore the page is moved as proposed.

I do note that Skookum1 did not expressly register a !vote, but his extensive comments are clearly in the vein of unique events being proper names and therefore preferring capitalization.

With respect to the proposed moves of Pullman Strike, Homestead Strike, and San Diego Free Speech Fight, six editors favor of the proposed moves, Dicklyon,  SMcCandlish, TonyTheTiger, ErikHaugen, Rjensen, Tony1; and four editors oppose the proposed moves: Randy Kryn, AjaxSmack, Kamek98, and Blueboar. Because our guidelines allow for a certain amount of flexibility in title variations, the question here is whether either variation is prohibited. Between two permissible titles, one that might better conform with the guidelines is preferred but not mandated. Therefore, there may be a good reason to move pages, but if the existing title is permissible, then a clear consensus is needed to support such a move. There is no clear consensus for these proposed moves, and therefore these pages are not moved. bd2412 T 16:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Pullman Strike → Pullman strike
• Homestead Strike → Homestead strike
• Illinois Coal Wars → Illinois coal wars
• San Diego Free Speech Fight → San Diego free speech fight

– These four articles that share a category all need to be downcased per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, but for various reasons there is a redirect in the way. Dicklyon (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jakec, North Shoreman, HughD, Edison, Chris troutman, Cptnono, and Lukeno94: @Dicklyon, Dekimasu, RGloucester, Tony1, Calidum, Red Harvest, and Djembayz: @SMcCandlish, Labattblueboy, Skookum1, and Ohconfucius: @Blueboar, ErikHaugen, BD2412, Hmains, Arbitrarily0, Neil P. Quinn, and Anglo-Araneophilus: – Since you have participated in or closed one or more of the recent riot/massacre/etc. decapitalization discussions, you are being pinged in case you want to be aware of this one; as agreed at the close linked in the move rationale at Talk:Watts Riots. Dicklyon (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence from book usage[edit]

Pullman strike

See usage in books via n-gram stats Note that commonly capitalized uses such as "Pullman Strike of" are very often citations of the books The Rev. William Carwardine and the Pullman Strike of 1894: The Christian Gospel and Social Justice and The Role of Blue Island the Pullman Strike of 1894. Of uses in text the vast majority are clearly lowercase. The threshold of "consistently capitalized in sources" is nowhere near met.

Homestead strike

Similar pattern as Pullman in n-grams and more n-gram stats. Most capitalized occurrences are with the "of", due to common citations to the book The Homestead Strike of 1892, with overall lowercase being more common. The threshold of "consistently capitalized in sources" is nowhere near met.

Illinois coal wars

"Illinois coal wars" is not common enough in books to show much in n-grams; see [1] and [2] and [3].

I find it in only this one book, in lowercase: [4]. No books in uppercase. And I find no singular in books. And I don't find it either way in Google scholar search. The title is good description, but clearly not an accepted proper name. As usual, it is hard to say much from web search, since so much of what is found mirrors wikipedia.

"Illinois mine wars" is more common in books, and usually lowercase (with only one "Mine wars" and no "Mine Wars" that I can see). And a few singular, all lowercase. Still not enough of anything to show up in n-grams. The threshold of "consistently capitalized in sources" is nowhere near met.

San Diego free speech fight

Only lowercase is common enough to appear in book n-grams.

Books show uppercase hits esp in citing sources such as "History of the San Diego Free Speech Fight" and "A Crisis of Confidence: The San Diego Free Speech Fight of 1912". Otherwise mostly lowercase. The threshold of "consistently capitalized in sources" is nowhere near met.

Since Skookum1 notes "I see no archival newspaper citations", I looked for some of those. I found this one with "Free Speech fight", but all the rest I checked (more than a dozen) had it all ower case. I don't usually bother with sources that old, as modern usage is what we mostly care about; and the n-grams, where applicable, already show the trend over time. If anyone cares, I can pull some for the other events, too.

Dicklyon (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Related discussions[edit]

This multi-RM split off from the larger one at Talk:Watts Riots#Requested moves, which is where the list of users to ping came from. The San Diego free speech fight was added, as being an outlier in the same category with the others: Category:Labor disputes in the United_States.

A related policy/guideline discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name".

Related open move discussions are at

• Talk:Pottawatomie Massacre#Requested move

Related recently closed move discussions are at

• Talk:Houston Riot (1917)#Requested move 14 December 2014
• Talk:Carnation Massacre#Requested move 13 December 2014
• Talk:Chicago race riot of 1919#Requested move 2
• Talk:Potato riots#Requested moves
• Talk:Rock Springs massacre#Requested moves
• Talk:Villatina massacre#Requested moves

Dicklyon (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Survey and discussion[edit]

• Support as nom, with Illinois mine wars as acceptable alternative to Illinois coal wars. Dicklyon (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment I have my reservations about the judgment handed down by Dicklyon about the San Diego items; "Free Speech Fights" happened in other cities, and I see no archival newspaper citations, only googlebooks searches; whether labour newspapers used the caps or not and what "establishment" anti-labour papers used remains to be ascertained; as with Anti-Oriental Riots this is a term usually seen with capitalization. Wiki lower-case-ism is not a rule...all too often it seems a time-wasting obsession, as was decidedly the case with the effort by endash enthusiasts to abolish the hyphen in Wikipedia. "Enough already"Skookum1 (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak Support on Illinois coal wars... but Opposed on Pullman Strike, Homestead Strike, and San Diego Free Speech Fight. While both a google books search and the ngrams seem to show that usage is mixed (neither form is significantly more common than the other).... a google news search seems to slightly favor capitalizing. These appear to be considered proper names for the events, and thus should be capitalized. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look again at the evidence above; "neither form is significantly more common than the other" mischaracterizes it. Even if that were the case, or even if you could show that news slightly favors caps, that doesn't come close to meeting the criteria of MOS:CAPS or MOS:MILTERMS of "consistently capitalized in sources". It is inconsistent, so caps are unnecessary, so we avoid them. Relatively few authors treat them as "proper names for events"; they are suitable descriptive terms for the events, which don't need proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Opposed on the strikes and free speech events, as these are the traditional names of the events. Historical and newsworthy events such as these are seen by many people as 'units' - they start out as something else and evolve into a cohesive unit with which they are identified. The editor who is now consistently changing, and in this case, attempting to, through good faith, change many of the strikes, movements, and other social events of past eras into lower-case happenstances is also attempting to overturn Wikipedia's universal and long-standing spelling of the events which culminate and are expressed in the term 'African-American Civil Rights Movement'. Strikes, major Movements, and related major long-term social shifts and their respective final results and agreements do have importance, do become, in common usage, proper nouns, and to diminish them through making them 'something other' seems to be a misunderstanding of how such events are thought about (French Revolution, American Revolution, World War II, etc.) Randy Kryn 15:38 20 December, 2014 (UTC)

  p.s. Looking through the editor's contributions apparently he's changed as many of the 'Strike' pages as he could already today, but those listed here as a group are put up for a vote because they will have to go over redirects. I don't know how this is allowed, and would ask that he change all the pages back that he has decapitalized, and that he maybe step back and consider why this good faith wholesale title-change run directed at the social movement pages on Wikipedia both started and continues under logical objections. Thanks. Randy Kryn 15:57 20 December, 2014 (UTC)

  Not as many as I could, just the ones that are not "consistently capitalized in sources". Many did not even have redirects, and did not have sensible capitalization in the articles, either. And they stood out as outliers in Category:Labor disputes in the United States, which was already 80% at the lowercase terms suggested by guidelines. This is routine improvement per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. I'm still working on fixing the 30 that RGloucester reverted, which is where three of the current four came from (he says he will no longer interfere in capitalization questions). Nobody has yet claimed that they meet our criteria for capitalication at WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, but Blueboar has made up the new criterion "slightly favor capitalization" in news. Dicklyon (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I grew up in Chicago, and spent most of my life there, and in Chicago the Pullman Strike is capitalized. It is an important event in Chicago and in labor history. In some quarters this would be like trying to decapitalize Chicago itself, which in retrospect may not be a bad idea (satire implied....). And decapitalizing the Homestead Strike? Huh? Randy Kryn 16:26 20 December, 2014 (UTC)

  As I mentioned elsewhere, I am all in favor of treating these as important events. But WP does not use caps for that, as some styles do. Policy and guidelines say we only use caps for proper names and such; see WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Sir, with all due respect, and you have a fantastic record here, these are proper names. They are not quite proper names at the time of the event. Then, as they gain stature in history, they become proper names. This is how people refer to them. You are actually challenging the fact, even though Wikipedia has used them since the pages were named, that the African-American Civil Rights Movement (or its variations, '1960s Civil Rights Movement', etc.) isn't the event's proper name. And here you are doing the same with actions which are revered, ah, I mean referred, to throughout American labor and by American labor historians (which I am not, and do not claim to be. I've known some.) as proper and common and real names of the events - and the series of circumstances surrounding those events - which are now defined as, for example, the Pullman Strike, or the Homestead Strike. But we have different points of view on this, it's just that I don't understand yours (but hey, that's what makes us human, and advances discussions such as this). Again, as on the other page, I think the section heading, in this case 'Survey and Discussion', does not define what this section is trying to do. So if you don't mind I'll change it to reflect the reality of this vote. Randy Kryn 21:36 20 December, 2014 (UTC)

  I restored the conventional section title. In the section above this one, I linked the book evidence that contradicts your claims that these are now accepted as proper names. Did you look? And did you read our policies and guidelines, also linked above? Dicklyon (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The patronizing tone of that last query is tiresome, as is claiming that guidelines are RULES or that guidelines are "policies" which they are not (MOSCAPS and NCCAPS are the two your referred to). Randy Kryn's points about fully-capped usages being common in the real world and also in Wikipedia are very valid; hand-waving at guidelines as if they were "policies" or that they should be dealt with simplistically, or with reference to numerical/quantitative factors only, which is against COMMONSENSE, I've seen lots of, including in the case of a huge mass of BOLD moves that were, like your title changes in this area already, justified by reference to ones that had already been BOLD changed and amendments to a naming guideline that were against policy (WP:NCL re the unnecessary +people dab). Such "moving the pieces before the game starts" is duly noted as a tactic common within Wikipedia, as is rewriting guidelines while debates affected by them are underway. The ENDASH/HYPHEN matter saw a lot of that, including misquotations of HYPHEN and ENDASH sections of MOS......What I see here is an effort to lower-case everything, a bad habit which is widespread in Wikipedia and it seems a knee-jerk matter for its enthusiasts. In the previous series of these I pointed out Winnipeg General Strike, which is not "Winnipeg general strike", and any number of other examples can be found. Interpreting google searches to reach the conclusion you are advancing, by discounting titles in all caps (chapter or not) is actually original research; it says right in TITLE that if titles that are not supported by the bulk of academic/book sources but which are in common use (not majority use) can be titles; I'll find the exact passage if you insist but to me it seems that those who fling guidelines out as-if-policy and make the "you have read our guidelines and policies?" taunt are also those who haven't read or aren't addressing all of what those guidelines (not policies) say, and also bring up only one guideline without reference to all the others that provide other rationales than the narrow parameter/reading of the cited guideline taken into account. Also ((ping|User:Randy Kryn]] his hasn't just been social movements this fake "rule" and so-called policy has been applied to.Skookum1 (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I did not participate in the upcasing discussion for Winnipeg General Strike, but the rationale for that (This event is always uppercased in credible publications, which treat it as a proper noun the same way other significant conflicts, such as the Cold War are treated as proper nouns) is consistent with policy and guidelines, and I would have supported it, like everyone else did, if the data support that assertion. I don't know why you would call this guideline MOS:CAPS "fake"; have you read it? Dicklyon (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I never said MOSCAPS was "fake", I said treating a guideline as a rule was fake; there are no rules, remember? Not the first time you've twisted what I've said to avoid the point, and that "rhetorical" question about whether or not I've read that guideline (which you have presented as if it were policy) is just insulting. It's also not the only guideline out there, and there are passages in WP:TITLE that indicate other considerations may be taken into account that numerical-only analysis/interpretation of google results. MOSCAPS is not Holy Writ, nor is it a policy, as you have claimed. As for the Winnipeg General Strike, the RM for that was closed in 2007 with unanimous support noted the prevalence of the all-caps title, and also made reference to what is now titled the Great Canadian Flag Debate. Some events have proper-name status, and also some types of incidents like "Free Speech Fight" do too. Imposing Wikipedia guidelines on normal English usage has the problem of the encyclopedia's influence on English terminology at large; overturning long-standing capitalization because of an iron-clad application of so-called "policy" is not valid. I note also, as with things like "First World War" rather than "First world war", items like Adams–Onís Treaty, which is not the official name of the treaty.Skookum1 (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Re "This is routine improvement per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS" why not "improve" those guidelines (which are not policy) to reflect the existence of titles such as "Winnipeg General Strike" as norms (which they are). You're not "improving the encyclopedia" by this series of ironclad applications of your interpretation of what you claim are "policies", you're engaging in what amount to controversial changes (as clearly seen as controversial by the controversy that is fielded whenever you trot out another group of things you can't change yourself but need an RM to do).Skookum1 (talk) 05:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support per nom's evidence. I cannot agree with Blueboar's made-up criterion that amounts to "capitalized just enough times in some sources to satisfy me personally". Pretty much all topics WP has articles about "are seen by many people as 'units'", or we wouldn't have articles on them. This doesn't make their titles proper names, and we don't capitalize them. As I said in one of the other concurrent and near-identical RM discussions, please actually read Proper name, or better yet some more reliable English linguistics sources on how proper names are defined. Blueboar's suppositions about these article titles are not accurate, and I say that as someone who rejects some of the more rigid philosophical interpretations, being a descriptive linguist by some training (it was my college minor subject, which makes me not an expert but more knowledgeable on the topic than probably 99.9% of the population). The philosophical issue is briefly touched on at Proper name (philosophy), though there are entire books about the topic. The salient point from philosophy, for WP purposes, is that there's a marked difference between a proper name and a description, and all of the items under discussion here are descriptive appellations (mostly from newspaper headlines and copy, some adopted by books), not proper names. I disagree with some of the philosophers, in maintaining (as would anyone with a linguistics background) that in some cases a description can become a proper name. This is clearly the case with, say, Vietnam War, Korean War, and many other (not all) terms for various armed conflicts, as an example. The transition happens when virtually zero sources fail to capitalize them, and when they eclipse all other usages. E.g., no one refers to World War I as the Great War, or the War to End All Wars, any longer, and "World War I" is clearly its proper name at this point, though formerly this was not the case (it didn't become the case until ca. the 1970s, after most WWI vets had died, and the other usages became virtually extinct). None of the cases here rise to this level of consistency, as shown by DickLyon's evidence.

  I'll take this opportunity to state that one of the things I don't like about AT/MOS and WP generally is the weird choice to use sentence case instead of title case for titles and headings, unlike the vast majority of other publications (other than academic journals in some fields, and certain newspapers, for the most part). I would heartily support a reversal of this, since it would make most of these capitalization squabbles in RM moot, among other benefits. As far as I can determine, the only rationale for sentence case has been that we didn't have a rule about what "small words" (the, of, etc.) to lower case vs. capitalize inside them, but we've actually fixed that, at MOS:TITLES. This wouldn't resolve disputes about capitalization in running prose, but it would cut the number of disputes in half at least.

  It also wouldn't resolve the inconsistency with which we treat certain categories, e.g. capitalizing art and design movements, like Art Nouveau, but not literary, film/theatre, or music movements and genres, like science fiction and jazz. But that's a different kind of problem. My take on that is to decapitalize, across the board. Capitalizing "Art Nouveau" and "Art Deco" in particular is absurd, since these are French loan terms and were not capitalized when we borrowed them. It's an insipid and uneducated affectation, a form of overcorrection. I realize these latter comments are not germane to this RM in particular, but I want to plant the seeds of some constructive change. Simpler, more consistent rules, that also agree with average reader (and thus editor) expectations – not those of specialists, which includes locals who like to capitalize events of local significance – to address Randy Kry's "I grew up in Chicago..." subjective point of questionable validity – will be an overall boon, by making our output more palatable, editing more expeditious, and dispute less frequent and entrenched. We should not be using a different capitalization style for one topic for no real reason, nor confusing descriptive appellations with proper names. As MOS:CAPS indicates: When in doubt, do not capitalize. All of these topics (both in this RM, and in the broader ranges I've touched on) raise such doubt, so just follow MOS on this and stop overcapitalizing. Simple.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Interesting idea. The original reason to use sentence case in titles, iirc, was so that links in sentences would work right, without making linking totally case insensitive, and without a bunch of redirects. Perhaps there are better technical solutions now that would take care of that and make it easy to change to using title case in titles. Then these case arguments would still happen, but would be purely style arguments, not requiring "Requested Move" discussions. Would that be better? Maybe. Propose it if you like. In the mean times, thanks for supporting following the existing policy and guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  What "policy" are you talking about? MOSCAPS and NCCAPS and MOS itself are only GUIDELINES (and can and should be changed).Skookum1 (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Right, sorry, I meant guidelines. I was under the mistaken impression that WP:NCCAPS was a part of the TITLE policy, but it is not. I apologize. Not that I think the distinction is as important as you seem to think. Yes, guidelines (and also policies) can be changed. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support I have watched Chicago race riot of 1919, which I took to GA way back when, be moved 4 times since October 15 regarding this very issue. I support this nom based on my involvement in that article and agreement with the resolution of that page's WP:RM.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Important comment I don't know how this is getting support. Here's how to see if it's the common name: Google it. Google "Pullman Strike", look at the first few pages, and see wht historical organizations and other sources call it. It's capitalized! It's a proper name. Then Bing it. Bing it till you can't Bing it anymore. Look at the entries on the first few pages. It's capitalized. The mountain of evidence that Dicklyon has presented is one peak, a mid-size peak, in a mountain range. If you want to see what the common name of the Pullman Strike is, Google or Bing it, and you will have your answer. I haven't checked Homestead Strike on Google or Bing as yet, can someone do that and report back? As I said above, Dicklyon wants to lower-case all of the African-American Civil Rights Movement pages, and is using the same kind of source 'evidence'. Just use the search engine on something like 'Pullman Strike' and this will show how deep that source evidence goes. My apologies about my tone here, and I have to assume good faith. It's just that I have yet to understand why this is occurring. Randy Kryn 20:38 21 December, 2014 (UTC)

  Book search is an imperfect tool, but web search is way worse, for several reasons: (1) Many web pages are wikipedia mirrors, or influenced by wikipedia, so they reflect our current or recent capitalization; (2) Search engines tend to rank capitalized hits higher than lowercase (same in book search, too); (3) Web editors tend to capitalize stuff they care about more than the editors of book publishers do (that's my opinion based on observations, anyway). So Bing away, but be careful how you interpret the numbers (if you get any numbers). Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • One problem here is the clustering of groups of such titles, when each should be dealt with separately on its own merits....rather than bludgeoned with a one-sided and clearly controversial invocation of passages of MOS which are the problem, and their application not a solution. American Civil War is not American civil war, for example and you've already noted "FOO Revolution" items; At the risk of drawing Dicklyon's campaign against upper casing to them, other all-cap titles are Oka Crisis, Ipperwash Crisis, Burnt Church Crisis, Gustafson Lake Standoff, North-West Rebellion, Red River Rebellion, On-to-Ottawa Trek, Sir George Williams Affair and more.....the other bit of weirdness is how, in a deliberation over a suitable title, any instances of title-usages in cites are discounted by those advancing their lower-caseing agenda; which is not just counterintuitive and anti-logical, it puts the lie to the notion that such differences are only editorial/typographical choices....if a book chapter-title or title or magazine titles is all capped, why should Wikipedia imposed sentence-capitalization on titles? THAT is why MOS needs amending, among so many other reasons. But those defending lower-case-ism would fight any such change, just as they did with ENDASH/HYPHEN and other matters.Skookum1 (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Actually, SMcCandlish, who defends lowercase where recommended by MOS:CAPS, is also recommending modifying WP:NCCAPS to change to using title case in titles, rather than sentence case as currently recommended in naming conventions (NC). That's not an MOS issue, but a TITLE issue. But as long as WP:NCCAPS says to use sentence case in titles, that's what we should do. Contrast that with WP:CT, which recommends capitalizing most words in composition titles, as citations to other books are. When such things are found in sources, they don't bear on the question of how a term is treated in a sentence, which is we why discount them when looking at capitalization stats. Let me know if you need more clarification. Dicklyon (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Peloponnesian War is not "Peloponnesian war".Skookum1 (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Rogue River Wars, not "Rogue River wars"; American Indian Wars and its redirect Indian Wars and lots more.....Skookum1 (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Peloponnesian War is pretty consistently capitalized in sources [5]. With recently better than 3:1 upper:lower [6], the Rogue River Wars has at least a credible case of meeting the threshold at MOS:MILTERMS for proper name status. The American Indian Wars, on the other hand, does not sound much like a proper name of anything, and is only near 1:1 in sources [7]; similarly the Indian Wars [8]. Even Encyclopedia of American Indian Wars: 1492–1890 uses lowercase in the text for "Indian wars". The moves that I have proposed are not near the ambiguous edge of what would be considered "consistently capitalized in sources". Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • that's your opinion only, and disputed by others here in the case of the Pullman Strike and the San Diego Free Speech Fight, and was disputed re Wah Mee Massacre and Rock Springs Massacre also. Now you're suggested that there was a de-lowercasing decision on Winnipeg General Strike and indicated by saying that that you will challenge that also. "Consistently capitalized in sources" does not mean that such capitalized uses need be an overwhelming majority, only that they consistently do appear as such. And from WP:TITLE here's some relevant bits:
          • "When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent." "Previous consensus" can include long-standing all-caps titles, many of them derived by discussions among editors and contributors who actually work on the articles, not just engage in drive-by MOS-driven renamings.
          • "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." Readers are used to allcaps on chapter titles in books and on magazine articles, and "specialists" include MOS-mavens interested more in furthering instruction creep in bulk fashion, imposing their typographical particularism as a sort of stylistic bulldozer. Interests of readers are not served by such name-fiddling, only those of MOS advocates/"specialists".
        • Events do have proper names, and are often treated as such; whether you maintain they are or not, that position on them is obviously controversial and you do not have consensus for this ongoing campaign of yours; anything but.Skookum1 (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - Here's another "clarification" as to the regular occurrence of not-downcased titles in Wikipedia: Quiet Revolution. Maybe you just haven't gotten to it yet, as with the others I've given as examples of the many exceptions to YOUR interpretation/application of MOS that are out there.Skookum1 (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I may not "get to" that one, since it is capitalized often enough in sources that many would consider that evidence of proper name status. Take a look at the data. I prefer to work on the easy cases, like the ones in this RM, where the data clearly do NOT support interpretation as a proper name, per MOS:CAPS or MOS:MILTERMS. Dicklyon (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The example given in MILTERMS doesn't help your case: "The generic terms (war, revolution, battle) take the lowercase form when standing alone (France went to war; The battle began; The raid succeeded)." What you're doing is still cherrypicking "the easy ones" in pursuit of your one-sided interpretation and self-appointed mandate to "fix" titles that were stable a long time. The ngram for Oka Crisis btw, if your "logic" were to prevail and that search valid (which I maintain is not as not all references are in book form), shows "Oka crisis" outweighing "Oka Crisis" by 2:1 - but still significant enough to prove that enough editors use all-caps for those to warrant recognition as a "proper name", which is indeed how the term is used; and I won't be the only one saying "no" to that, if you were to RM it. It's a particular event, with a recognizable proper name, that some editors (non-wikipedia) out there choose to lower-case it is irrelevant; that many, if not all, DO capitalize it remains relevant. Pure numerical analysis, like instruction creep, is mechanistic thinking; and I refer to COMMONSENSE again, which requires the use of more faculties than numerical thinking alone. "Riel rebellions" is lower-cased (that's only a TWODAB page btw), its engram shows "Riel Rebellions". As an example of events which do NOt have book coverage, "Wah Mee massacre" doesn't show up at all, nor does "Gustafson Lake Standoff", "Ipperwash Crisis" or "Burnt Church Crisis", even though those phrases in use and remain so. Google does not embrace teh whole of reality, in other words.Skookum1 (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  That neither those items, nor On-to-Ottawa Trek, get no results at all speaks to a failing of googlebooks completeness; and I've noted in other news and book searches that older-date sources just aren't there; it's not like google defines reality, or is complete as it is taken to be. Those are all terms found in current books and beyond; yet google has nothing.Skookum1 (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Nothing to do with Google books completeness (though that is certainly incomplete, too). Many of those examples don't appear in 40 books, so are not indexed in n-grams; but they can still be found in books: "Gustafson Lake Standoff", etc. I try to stay away from messing with cases that are 2:1 or more upper:lower, since I'm not ready to take on the question of what would be a reasonable threshold for "consistently capitalized in sources" per the first paragraphs of MOS:MILTERMS and MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  "consistently" is not synonymous with by-majority-of-hits, it means that it is consistently if not exclusively used, as still being a prevalent usage if not a majority of hits. COMMONSENSE says that, as with Oka Crisis, if there is sufficient use, that's enough to warrant that there are enough people/writers/editors who consider and use it as a proper name, vs other editors whose choices are to downgrade the event from proper name to "just another crisis".Skookum1 (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support—Compelling evidence that these are generally not treated as proper names in literature. So we don't either. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC

• Support per nom. Caps are uncommon in the scholarly literature. Rjensen (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Has anyone bothered to Google or Bing the Pullman strike and Homestead strike (with the small "s" just to be fair)? I've gone 28 pages in on both of them, and the capitalization is by far the most prevalent, overwhelmingly. It is the common name. Dicklyon claims these may be mostly Wikipedia mirrors. Nope. Way off on that one. Consistent across the board. If Wikipedia is looking for common names for these two pages, just leave them as they are. If Wikipedia wants to strike new ground and change the common names of two of the most prominent labor history events in the 20th Century, then support is the way to go. But if outvoted ten to one by people that vote on these things it still doesn't change the fact that the common names are capitalized, and I hope that the final result would show, given the overwhelming weight of common name capitalization, that consensus is far from reached. And, again, the name of this section, "Survey and discussion" (how is that even related to a vote?) which shows up in the Edit summary does not alert anyone that a name change is being discussed. This is wrong on several levels, and hopefully the admins will take all of the facts into consideration. Randy Kryn 10:54 24 December, 2014 (UTC)
    • Most editors are familiar with such subjection titles under "Requested move". "Move" is WP terminology for "rename". The survey is a WP:NOTVOTE. Dicklyon (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Thank you for the clarification, I thought this was a final vote on the name change and not a straw poll. I know the term "move", but wasn't familiar with the title of this section or of the Wikipedian policies on name changes. I'm not a voting editor here, and have seldom been involved in these kind of discussions, so the terms have never been a part of my wikipedian vocabulary. I'll keep watch of this page, but please let me know when a formal vote (if it comes to that) is taken on the two names (Pullman Strike, Homestead Strike). Thanks, and aside from all of this, the best of the holidays to you and yours. I'll be eating tofurky for Christmas, but would rather be eating a tofugoose. Randy Kryn 17:04 24 December, 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, it's not exactly a straw poll either. The closer will determine whether we have a consensus. Your opinion counts as much as anyone's (though opinions may not carry as much weight as comments relative to policy, sources, and guidelines). There will not be a vote, final or otherwise. Dicklyon (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • You're throwing out a Catch-22 here. Your link, WP:NOTVOTE, links to 'Straw Poll'. Now you say it is a vote, and there will be no other vote. So this is, according to you, both a vote, not a vote, a straw poll, not a straw poll, and a wangdangdoodle of a golly. A survey and discussion seems to mean 'Straw poll', which is not a vote (says so in the link WP:NOTVOTE unless 'Notvote' has taken on a new meaning since you've posted that. Please, just leave the ones which have strong evidence on both sides, depending on what prism is used and cited, as they've been since the start of their pages on Wikipedia. Makes perfect sense to me, although I'm not using the correct wikipedian term when I say 'makes perfect sense' (WP:MPS ?) Randy Kryn 17:40 24 December, 2014 (UTC)
            • Yes, that's an odd title for that section of WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. The point is that the discussion is more important than the numbers. Coherent arguments relative to guidelines and policies carry more weight than opinions. Dicklyon (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • On the first page of Google hits for "Pullman strike", I see at least 4, including the Britannica, that use "Pullman strike" in the text, even though Google prefers to highlight the capitalized occurrence in the title. Book search usually has a better reprsentation of "reliable" sources, and less wikipedia contamination, so it's a better place to get usage stats, imho. Note that some of the hits are for the band "Pullman Strike", like their Facebook page. Dicklyon (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • You've had to pick and choose to continue your point of view. I haven't. And the band 'Pullman Strike'? Never heard of them. But they at least used the common name, according to search engines. Good for them (certainly doesn't mean I will try to listen to their music though). Randy Kryn 17:45 24 December, 2014 (UTC)
        • Re cherrypicking and "junking" of some results for Pullman Strike, that there are issues with this title different from the others in the group of articles RMd points up the other procedural problem here; that bulk moves are frowned upon, as I was admonished re Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move and that individual items should be dealt with individually; this isn't as large a bulk RM as that had been, but it is one in a long series of RMs of this type put forward by the same editor = getting around the "no bulk moves" issue, or trying to. Highly notable events like this one, or the Winnipeg General Strike, cannot be dealt with by original research arguments and MOS-interpretations claiming that they are "sentence phrases" or whatever and not actual proper names. Trying or pretending that to lump it in with other "easier" items is obviously not working, and is contentious; as is the treatment of search stats with cherrypicking and rationalizations to justify that. This bulk RM is out of order, in other words, and ample precedents exist out there that are all-capped titles for events; if MOS and its advocates are so rigid in their thinking that WP:COMMONSENSE is not in their purview, then the passages of MOS in question need an RfC and impartial review by someone with no fortress mentality about their interpretation of MOS and/or resistance to guidelines that challenge MOS' wording.Skookum1 (talk) 02:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • What is the "no bulk moves" issue? Maybe Wikipedia:Page movement#Mass moves? Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • You tell me, it was invoked to shut down Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move and its siblings (there were three like that, with the max number of potential RMs listed); "procedural disallow" or however it was objected and closed re. You have been RMing 5+5+5+n endlessly, often grouping things together, as here, seeking a group move, rather than examining each one individually, as I was instructed to do (and won most of them if not for certain parties' hostility towards me personally, rather than respecting consistency and the consensus evident in several dozen other RMs). Pullman Strike and Homestead Strike are bona fide proper names of events, and "style" is not a reason to debase them by claiming "strike" is only "descriptive". It is the noun in the title; not capping a noun while capping its modifier when the two are a well-known phrase makes no grammatical/stylistic sense; why if these are titles is sentence-case rather than title-case used? Some long-ago "consensus" of a few MOSers? It's not holy writ, stop using it like the Inquisition out to purge wikipedia of stylistic heretics.

You don't and won't have consensus on these two strikes, that's clear. Stop grouping things together that have differing issues and notability as if they were all the same; they're not. I won't list other fullcaps titles as examples, partly to keep from seeing them RMd as part of your ongoing BULK MOVES (masquerading as small groups) re lower-casing. And stop degrading labour history and social history events; Rock Springs Massacre and Wah Mee Massacre should never have been messed with, along with many others that have been subjected to your MOS-bludgeoning. If labour history is not your forte, per what is says on WP:RM and/or WP:CFD, if you don't know the subject matter, stay out of the discussion - and implicitly also don't don't launch RMs on titles in subject areas where you have no expertise and/or have not been one of the authors of the article. Your are an expert in MOS, or claim to be one, but "the subject matter" doesn't mean wikipedia guidelines, it means the topic of the article/title.

• • • • • • • You said something about reliable sources? Well the Illinois official government website at illinois.gov even capitalizes the letter. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 21:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • If you mean the one you linked below ([9]) that is TOTALLY FALSE. All three occurrences of "Pullman strike" in sentences in that document use lowercase "strike". Dicklyon (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • Stop using all caps please and use civility when you discuss as Wikipedia guidelines states. Anyway, it is written like that because they were student papers and they seem to be using the Chicago style of English I believe which is outdated when compared to MLA format which is being implemented throughout school systems. In the Chicago Manual of Style they make lower case rules that other recent MOS's do not have. When I was referring to the capital letter used I was talking about in the titles of the articles they used and not how it is used in the paper of the students because student papers are unreliable (with exceptions of course). Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 01:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                  • • We do not use MLA format. I didn't bring up this student paper; you did. Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support per Dicklyon's thorough case supported by robust evidence. Randy: "as these are the traditional names of the events. Historical and newsworthy events such as these are seen by many people as 'units'"—what exactly are your sources for these claims? The evidence presented appears to undermine your assumptions. @everyone: these word strings (strikes, etc) are descriptive—or are at least widely treated as such, which means that our house style should pertain, naturally. As soon as you can substitute a synonym (the Pullman stop-work resulted in ...), they suggest a descriptive rather than a titular item. And Randy, are you really suggesting we should cap every occurrence of the short forms in the main text, e.g., "the Strike was criticised by ..."? Seriously? Tony (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  His case carefully picked and choose among much other evidence. As I said, just Google or Bing the two names in particular, Homestead Strike and Pullman Strike. Go 28 pages in, as I did. Use the small 's' in the search engine. You will find that the common names run throughout historical societies, labor history sites, union sites, a band name (they got it right!), and through many other sources and familiar academic sites. As discussed above, by Dicklyon himself, this isn't really a vote, but a straw poll, so we will have to go through this all again. He has now formally put up all the 1960s Civil Rights Movement names to be decapitalized, and this would be a tragedy if allowed to stand (seriously, that's so odd of a request that it's hard to even counter it with seriousness). Although it was said earlier in this discussion that he's going after articles other than the major social movements of the 20th century, is it logical that this may have been the goal all along? Please do not let that stand, or the pages moves discussed in this straw poll to stand. Lots of editors are gone for the holidays, a fine time to bring up something as all-encompassing as the CRM moves. Randy Kryn 14:52 27 December, 2014 (UTC)

  Randy, yes, but that's a mistake I made when first looking at caps in google searches: you get a preponderance of titles in a google search, and titles out there do tend to use title (capped) case. (In that respect, en.WP is unusual.) So a plain google search is, in a sense, cherry-picking itself. I do believe Dicklyon's survey is worth taking seriously—in my experience he doesn't twist his surveys to show what he wants. But the critical issue it comes down to is that if there's a significant proportion of usage the way WP's house style suggests, then MOSCAPS says, by implication, go with that. Usage is by no means consistent, as required by MOSCAPS if caps are to be used on en.WP. Tony (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Hi, and no, you didn't make a mistake. The WP:COMMONNAME semi-policy here calls for doing a search engine run (see WP:SET at number seven) to see what the common name is. In this case the common names are Pullman Strike and Homestead Strike, even by giving the lower-case name the benefit of a doubt about search-engine cherry picking. I'm not contesting the other suggestions, although I haven't researched them (and as mentioned, I'm not a labor historian), and will look at them when a formal request for a name change is made. But for the two names I am saying are common names, they both seem to be the common names. Randy Kryn 15:40 27 December, 2014 (UTC)

  p.s. And of course I don't mean capitalize 'Strike' in every mention. Just like the proper name 'President Nixon' could be 'the president' or 'president' in the same article, when the full proper name is used then that's the only area it should be capitalized. Randy Kryn 18:12 27 December, 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Pullman Strike → Pullman strike and Homestead Strike → Homestead strike per arguments above. While some sources eschew caps in proper names (e.g. The Economist does not capitalise "second world war"), Wikipedia typically follows the standard English practice of capitalising proper names, which these two are. —  AjaxSmack  02:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Actually you have that backwards. Wikipedia avoids unnecessary caps, and looks to consistent capitalization in sources to determine what's a proper name. Per common usage in books, these are not. Dicklyon (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  But these are necessary to show that they are proper names and not names of a generic phenomenon ("Let's have a pullman strike this week.") or a descriptive (Who struck which "pullman"?) The fact that many sources use caps for these names (weighed against other style manual prohibitions such as that of The Economist I mentioned above) shows the recognition of this. —  AjaxSmack  03:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  So you're saying that the many authors who use "Pullman strike" in books are just hopelessly confused? Or are you just confused, thinking that Pullman is not a proper name here (it is, the name of a company). Sounds like you haven't looked at the evidence, or you would not have brought up "pullman" thus. Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I think you just made my (pointy) point. Proper names should be capitalised. I'm full aware of what Pullman means having been on a Pullman and been to Pullman (but not on a Pullman) and known several Pullmans but not George (obviously, I hope). And, yes, I had read the article before my comment. I'm not saying that all "authors who use 'Pullman strike' in books are just hopelessly confused" but some may be bound by conventions that eschew caps for proper names. Would you consider the "American Civil War" or the "Second World War" to be common names as the Economist does? (Economist Style Guide/example/example) —  AjaxSmack  02:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  So now you're claiming that there exist sources, or editorial styles, that "eschew caps for proper name" yet capitalize Pullman, such that we see a preponderance of "Pullman strike" in sources. I call BULLSHIT on that theory, too. How do people come up with this stuff? Dicklyon (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  You fail to see further points. Have you not realized that English is written and spoke incorrectly by the majority of those who speak it? That includes the way we write proper nouns in English. A lot of people incorrectly write proper nouns like Pullman Strike as Pullman strike and it is one of the small things in English people fail to understand. Dick, did you know that the word "alright" is incorrect? The word is actually "all right". Did you know that double negatives are often understood as negatives when they are positives? Did you know fewer and less are not often interchangeable as they aren't true synonyms? Did you know further and farther aren't synonyms? Native English speakers don't follow their own rules and drawing incorrect usage of capitalization is your suggestion. Give me a break and stop using percentages of the incorrect case of the letters to argument your statements. Start following official definitions of proper nouns. By the way, the guideline talking about usage in reliable resources etc applies to things such as Nike shoes as because shoes are general terms associated with Nike. Pullman strike would be incorrect because the strike is a singular event and not a general term when used to name this event. Therefore "strike" is a proper noun. It is Pullman Strike. People don't understand English and it is a common mistake. I can go on for ages about this but I'll end it here. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 04:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Dick, I also shake my head in amazement at the low quality of analysis and the evidentiary blinkers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs)

  Tony, ah, you mean blinders, as in Blinkers (horse tack). So true; tunnel vision, narrow POV, inability to know what's going on around. It's hard to distingusih the lies from the inanity. Dicklyon (talk) 06:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  "Now you're claiming that there exist sources, or editorial styles, that 'eschew caps for proper name'". Yes, I linked to one above and will link it again here: Economist Style Guide/example/example Please take a few minutes to link and actually read the style guide in question. The examples given are of proper names in lowercase except for included names of places just as you propose for these articles (e.g. "American civil war" with "American" capitalised and "civil war" not. I wasn't proposing a theory or implying a secret plot to eliminate capital letters, just pointing out the existence of a phenomenon in a major respected publication. If you want to deny or ignore it or call it bullshit, lies, inanity, tunnel vision, or whatever other playground insults you can find in your thesaurus, I'm fine with that. I presented it for the entire talk page readership. —  AjaxSmack  00:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The Economist is not eschewing caps for proper names! They just have a different threshold for which names they consider to be proper. It's a wholly different thing! They treat descriptive terms like "world war" and "civil war" as generic. This is not common, and not our style, per MOS:MILTERMS. But that doesn't apply to Pullman strike, since sources are not even approximately consistent about capitalizing it. Compare: the American Civil War, the Pullman strike. Dicklyon (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Our GUIDELINES ARE NOT POLICIES. And here's a suggestion why do you look for some intense evidence supporting favor of the capital S over the lower case s so you may see both sides of the conflict? You have not weighed options and other factors and stick to your statistic evidence, which isn't much to base on for truth, and ignore the English grammar simply because popularity favors it rather than correctness. Popularity and common reliable sources are not the same thing and you need to consider that. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 05:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Note the use of "our", as with "we" he means his own guidelines, the ones he patrols and manages/revises and seeks to impose using top-down lecturing like we're hearing. And re mathematical tottery and statistical analsyses there's a famous phrase, "there's lies, damned lies, and statistics". Machine-thinking in terms of majority googles and majority votes-that-aren't-supposed-to-be-votes is rigid and not in touch with any reality than the narrow views of those who don't think deeply, only numerically, and even though not all that welll, as you note about his own original research statistical games. BTW Dicklyon what did you know about these events/articles before you set out to bludgeon-rename them?Skookum1 (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Reference sources capitalize the title It looks like almost all if not all the references which include the words 'Pullman Strike' in their titles capitalize the phrase. I haven't looked at Homestead Strike's references. Randy Kryn 12:10 2 January, 2015 (UTC)

Randy, that's TOTALLY FALSE. I can't access ref 1; next one with Pullman Strike in title is 5, which uses lower case. 6 and 9 by Wish I can't access. 15 uses lower case. 18 is the first and only one I find with upper case. We should of course also look at the ones I can't access, and the ones that don't have Pullman Strike in their titles. 4 uses lower case. 10 uses lowercase. 12 uses lower case. 14 uses lower case. 16 uses lower case. 17 uses lower case. Keep looking; maybe you'll find another upper case. Don't fib. Dicklyon (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay so here is a few of the many, many sources that capitalize the letters. the Chicago History Encyclopedia, Encyclopædia Britannica, Recollection Books, About Education, Chicago Tribune, Standford History Education, For Dummies, History Matters, Boundless, Pullmanil.org, Illinois Labor History, Illinois.gov. So how was that totally false? Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 21:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So by "reference sources" you think Randy didn't mean the sources referenced in the article? I have no doubt you can dredge up plenty of sources that style it different ways. But you're not telling the truth either, as many of those web pages you just linked use lower case, like the Chicago Tribune, the Stanford History Education (inconsistently itself), the For Dummies (read it!); Boundless (inconsistent), Illinois gov, and the History Matters doesn't have it at all in a sentence, so provides no info on whether they would treat it as a proper name or not. Dicklyon (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I see your argument but you must understand people have been taught to use lower case for most of the 1900s when recently corrections have been made in MOS's that these lower case words in proper nouns need to be capitalized no matter where they are in a sentence. As I said before, The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines proper noun as: a word or group of words (such as “Noah Webster,” “Kentucky,” or “U.S. Congress”) that is the name of a particular person, place, or thing and that usually begins with a capital letter and a noun that designates a particular being or thing, does not take a limiting modifier, and is usually capitalized in English —called also proper name. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 01:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, yes, people have been taught correctly to capitalize proper names. But the "and is usually capitalized in English" clause you what you guys keep ignoring. This one is NOT usually capitalized in English, as the data from sources amply confirms, so per MOS:CAPS and MOS:MILTERMS (which says "The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized."), we use lower case. If you understand, you will strike your opposition, and support our guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The thing is you understand the guideline there but you are not following them correctly. The consistent use in sources applies to that of things that are only found using "insert either uppercase or lowercase here" and very rarely use the other. In Pullman Strike/Pullman strike there is no consistent use of it and therefore we must use the most correct form which is the capital form. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 02:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+1 Tony (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I meant the titles. Every source title that includes the words 'Pullman Strike' capitalize the phrase. Dicklyon looked into some of those pages and found that they do not capitalize the phrase within the body of the article, while I just looked at the titles. For my admittedly awkward use of words, and I am new to this entire game, my apologies. Now, seeing Eric's list, a very solid list which presents a strong case for capitalization, and the response to this list, the evidence for letting this page stay as it is - and that the capitalization is common, used by many people, and accepted as the events proper name - mounts with every mini-discussion within it. Randy Kryn 11:14 3 January, 2015 (UTC)

Randy, you're being stupid; when you say "Every source title that includes the words 'Pullman Strike' capitalize the phrase" you are suggesting that they are providing evidence of it being a proper name, so we should capitalize it. But the opposite is true: if you look at those sources, they use lowercase "Pullman strike" in their text, providing evidence that they do NOT consider it to be a proper name. It is evidence of the opposite of what you are claiming. The fact that they use title case for titles is pretty typical, but irrelevant. Not everything capitalized in a title is a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You must look into the sources that use it as a lower case and consider who is writing it. You use the illinois.gov student papers as your rebuttal here but you don't consider the concept that students write in the MOS they are taught in and that is definitely not Wikipedia's MOS. Where as the Merriam Dictionary, Encylopaedia Britannica, and official English publications that don't follow certain MOS's use the capital "S". Also, use civility and assume good faith Dicky. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 02:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was you who introduced the illinois.gov student paper as evidence of proper name; it is the opposite. Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose Strong oppose per MOS:CAPS#Section headings, WOS:CAPS#Military terms, amongst other things. Many sources follow awkward grammar (although this isn't really the case all the time and this one the sources capitize the letters which is correct), and the new MLA format (which is being taught to high school students) capitalizes everything (first letter, that is) in the title (except and, etc.) This is the same situation why we name something "Blahblahblah High School" instead of "Blahblahblah high school". A proper noun has two distinctive features: 1) it will name a specific [usually a one-of-a-kind] item, and 2) it will begin with a capital letter no matter where it occurs in a sentence. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines proper noun as: a word or group of words (such as “Noah Webster,” “Kentucky,” or “U.S. Congress”) that is the name of a particular person, place, or thing and that usually begins with a capital letter and a noun that designates a particular being or thing, does not take a limiting modifier, and is usually capitalized in English —called also proper name. Pullman strike when opposed to Pullman Strike sounds less professional and general than something specific. Why do we call something World War II instead World war II?? The reason is because "War" is a proper noun in here. We aren't describing war in general. That's another case that can be used as an example here. Our Wikipedia naming standards are so awkward it's embarrassing. Okay, maybe I'm beyond on the point now. The fact remains WP:Article titles says you don't capitalize titles of articles since they are written as if they were in a sentence but it doesn't say you lowercase parts of proper nouns. In my own standpoint I have come to realize that most sources we used are from the Chicago style of English which is from (1908 I think?) and it has become outdated. We must follow MLA format (2008 I believe) to keep up with English standards. Before I get off topic; I strongly oppose this proposal and I hope you take my words into utmost consideration. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP does not use MLA style. We have our own style, described in the WP:Manual of Style. We don't capitalize title words, per WP:NCCAPS. Check it out. Dicklyon (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We implement various styles of English language. If we didn't we wouldn't be talking at all. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 02:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By "we" DL means MOSites and/or the original group of editors who "wrote" MOS, yet show no signs of respecting input on their iron-hand imposition of it, no matter the content, and despite the notation on RM and CFD pages "if you don't know the subject matter [labour history], don't take part in the discussion". Or start one. Those actually writing the articles know the content, those imposing guideline-hammering who don't should butt out. And stop posting RMs on subjects where your application of badly-written/conceived MOS issues is so often opposed as controversial, as here. Contributing editors rather than guideline-police should have the last word; this is not a dictatorship, but MOSites behave with imperiousness in a particular way as if their own words were law, or as if MOS was infallible.Skookum1 (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with you and I have knowledge on the subjects on hand, such as here where Dick has taken his guideline-for-policy belief in order to strike up an opposition for the requested move. I didn't mean to come off as a guideline enforcer because I for one oppose MOS's and our guidelines (I mean to a reasonable extent) and prefer correct general English over suggested ways to use it. The MLA bit was just to emphasize what may cause people to write these letters in its lower case form. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 04:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Important comment I encourage every one to read through others points and reevaluate your decisions if you must because a lot of points and debating has been made. No pressure, I'm just pointing that out there. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 04:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Important update of points made
  

• Reference sources, according to Nbooks, favor the usage of the lower case letters represented through a percentage which only goes until 2008 and starts in 1980 which Dick has linked us to.
• Many reference sources use the capital s as well.
• Dictionaries such as the Merriam-Webster have definitions for proper nouns that suggest that these letters be capital.
• English native speakers do not often use English correctly.
• Wikipedia's MOSCAPS and related pages are not absolute policies and are somewhat general rules and are rather basic ideas/concepts that should be considered. Often they are and as such are often applied correctly.
• Just because one page is affected by points on the previously mentioned pages it does not mean that it applies to any all pages that have similarities to that page because they may not fall under the general rule.
• Some MOS's taught to people who have written these sources are outdated.
• Randy's propagated sources support his claims but other other sources defy them.
• original research has been conducted for statistic evidence which is frowned upon.
Feel feel to update this list as this discussion has evolved quite a bit. I haven't added everything to this list. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 04:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

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: not moved. Consensus in this debate follows Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) and considers this title to be a proper-noun phrase. Happy Holidays to All! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  21:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

Pullman Strike → Pullman strike – It's been three years, and all the other articles discussed in the batch above have since had their over-capitalization fixed by consensus. The evidence is not changed, and the 6–4 in favor of following MOS:CAPS is probably about where we are, but maybe we can get a consensus to fix it this time. Dicklyon (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence

Copied from 2014 RM above:

See usage in books via n-gram stats Note that commonly capitalized uses such as "Pullman Strike of" are very often citations of the books The Rev. William Carwardine and the Pullman Strike of 1894: The Christian Gospel and Social Justice and The Role of Blue Island the Pullman Strike of 1894. Of uses in text the vast majority are clearly lowercase. The threshold of "consistently capitalized in sources" is nowhere near met.

2017 update: More n-grams:

[10], [11]. Pretty clearly lowercase strike dominates, even more so if you could take out headings, titles, citations, and such. Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion/poll

• Agin While Wikipedia does not follow the usual encyclopaedic convention of capitalizing everything but prepositions, it still follows the convention of capitalizing proper nouns, and this is one. The usual name for the event is the Pullman Strike; that's not just a descriptor. Anmccaff (talk)

  Probably you didn't go back and look at the evidence as to whether sources treat this as a proper name. I'll insert it above in an evidence section. Whether you call it "just a descriptor" or a name, it's clearly usually not treated as a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support as stalker of Dicklyon's contribs list. He presents a good case for downcasing. Tony (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose, it's a proper name, it the famous Pullman Strike. Look at the sources, here is Britannica's upper-casing, or do a google search, here's a link to one and I even used the lower-case 's', and you will see it's used as a proper noun up and down the internet and throughout books and sources. This is a historical strike and event in American history, and you and your fellow down-casers once again are asking Wikipedia to become a little more erroneous in its treatment of movements and unions, which in my opinion hurts the project. Proper names should be treated as such, this assuredly is one, and wanting to make it seem to be just another run-of-the-mill (or unionize the mill) strike does a disservice to the Wikipedia readers who expect to find an accurate and informed encyclopedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Your citation contradicts your claim: Britannica says "When the ARU gathered in Chicago in June for its first annual convention, the Pullman strike was an issue on the delegates’ minds." They use title case in titles, but this sentence usage shows that they are not treating it as a proper name. Google hits don't depend on your query case, but do tend to rank capped titles and headings above uses in sentences, which is why the books n-gram stats are more useful for assessing usage. News hits are also revealing (note caps mostly just in titles, lowercase more often in text). Please take another look and I'm sure you'll see the point. Dicklyon (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Britannica upper-cases this title and its first mention, our editors can see it for themselves here. The words you quoted, that you've pulled out of context, was about the union discussing the strike before the climax, while it was still a lower-case 'strike'. Subsequent events made it into the proper noun. On Google I linked the results of the name lower-cased, and it still shows the proper name is upper-cased. This is the events' recognizable, natural, precise and familiar name, and you are bending light around corners here by pointing out some source inconsistency in casing. We are an encyclopedia, and should reflect the real name of an event, which in this case is the upper-cased 'Pullman Strike'. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  This was the only use in a sentence; the only use that would give a clue as to whether they treat it as a proper name or not. Sure, they use title case in the title, but that doesn't tell you much of anything. Notice that that "first mention" is also not part of a sentence, just a header-like phrase; weird style, but not evidence for proper name treatment. Dicklyon (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose. While some sources eschew caps in proper names (e.g. The Economist does not capitalise "second world war"), Wikipedia typically follows the standard English practice of capitalising proper names, which this is. —  AjaxSmack  03:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I wasn't aware of The Economist or any others doing that; fascinating. Are you suggesting that a majority of sources eschew caps in proper names? Because most don't cap strike in Pullman strike. Dicklyon (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS, and WP:CONSISTENCY with previous RMs on various events and movements. The RS do not consistently capitalize this, so WP doesn't either.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose It seems to me that the evidence for the lower case "s" is mixed. Looking at the link provided by the nominator [12] there does appear to be a case for the upper case S. For example, the very first result [13] uses both lower as well as upper case (e.g. "The Pullman strike and .." - p.6 and "But the Pullman Strike ..", p.7). The third one (no online version for the second one) says "at the time of the Pullman Strike" - p.4). The fourth one ([14]) uses both forms. The assumption that the uppercase S is used only in titles doesn't seem to be fully borne out by looking at the actual texts of the articles. Given that the S is often capitalized in the text, I suggest sticking with the current format.--regentspark (comment) 16:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose per RegentsPark. If the sources were inconsistent, I agree, lowercase the s. A substantial majority of the sources really do appear to capitalize the S, though. SnowFire (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose per above comments re proper name. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose per above comments re proper name. I would have also opposed the same proposal for Homestead Strike. Jeff in CA (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

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.