Talk:Block Elements

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Writing systems (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Capitalization of article title[edit]

This article is one of a series of articles on Unicode blocks (see Category:Unicode blocks), which all use the capitalization used by Unicode as they are articles about the specific Unicode block, and not general articles about the contents of the Unicode block. So in this case, the subject of the article is the Unicode block named "Block Elements", and not block elements in general, which is why it is capitalized as "Block Elements" not "Block elements". The naming of Unicode block articles has been discussed now and then for other articles, and there is consensus to use this capitalization, so please do not change without first discussing and obtaining consensus. Thanks. BabelStone (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please provide exact links to where it "has been discussed" and where is that "consensus". — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Basic Latin (Unicode block).DRMcCreedy (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Can this be codified or at least mentioned in some predictable place? Before renaming this article I tried to check general articles about Unicode blocks and the WP rules but did not find anything useful. (The documents from Unicode apparently do not clarify the naming conventions, and it seemed to me that they just use title case for all headings (f.e. "Terms of Use"), except sentence case for list headings.) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the best place to mention this is. DRMcCreedy (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
If you can prove with reliable sources that Unicode blocks names are proper names (which is not obvious), the best place would be the Unicode block article itself. Otherwise, the current view should be described at least in that article's talk page (with all references to previous discussions, as from BabelStone's comment above it seems that there were more than one). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm obviously not going to be able to prove to your satisfaction that block names are proper names, but it seems obvious to me that they are because they are intended as a unique name identifying a particular contiguous set of characters (see Unicode Glossary). The article Block Elements is about the Block Elements block defined in the Unicode Standard; whereas an article named Block elements would be about the characters included in the Unicode Block Elements block (but not limited to their use in Unicode). If anyone wants to create an article about Block elements that is fine, and then this article would be renamed Block Elements (Unicode block) in line with other articles where there is a name clash (e.g. Emoticons (Unicode block) vs Emoticons). BabelStone (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm asking not to "prove to my satisfaction", but to provide a sufficiently reliable source that supports your view. It is not obvious that they are proper names and must be capitalized. Here are just several examples where "unique name identifying something particular" are not capitalized:
  • Groups of chemical elements, such as "noble gases", "coinage metals" or "rare earth elements".
  • Parts of the Solar System, such as "inner planets", "asteroid belt" or "Oort cloud".
  • Classes of symbols and marks in musical notation, such as "key signatures", "time signatures" or "articulation marks".
Actually, it seems to me that, in general, identifiers of various parts of a standard are not considered to be proper names.
And please provide links to other previous discussions that you have mentioned ("has been discussed now and then for other articles"). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)