Talk:Lieutenant governor of Georgia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States / State Legislatures (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. State Legislatures (marked as Low-importance).

Proposed move[edit]

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. 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. In terms of numerical vote, this was five in favor but four against, but even two of the supporters noted that the move was against the guideline. One editor observed that List of Presidents of the United States is capitalized so I looked into that. The presidents' article seems to have been created with that spelling in 2005 and it has never been moved. If anyone opposes that spelling they should open a separate move discussion. Since a change like the one proposed here would affect a lot of articles, even more than those currently listed, those who oppose the guideline at MOS:CAPS might consider trying to get it changed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Tlq:requested move/dated

– Most "List of Governor of [state]" articles capitalize the word "governor". Most of these did too until they were moved in Feb. 2009 with the reason "The plural form of personal titles should not be capitalized." I'm not sure if that is true but it should have been discussed first. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I consider the gold standard to be List of Presidents of the United States, which speaks for itself: The formal name of the title is "President of the United States", and this is listing them. So the title should be capitalized. However, I must point out that not all of the above are identical. Specifically, "List of governors of Japan". This is a list of the current prefectural governors in Japan; there is no position titled "Governor of Japan". So that should remain decapitalized. On the opposite end, I see zero justification for this very article remaining decapped; "Lieutenant governor of Georgia" makes no sense. --Golbez (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unless you are talking about a particular person (e.g. Lieutenant Governor John Smith) the grammatical standard is lower case. This is the same for university presidents (see what I did there?) and other titles. Greg Bard (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. When you are talking about the short form, yes: "There are three lieutenant governors." Likewise, "Pat McCrory is the governor." But when you're talking about the full formal title, you capitalize: "There are three Lieutenant Governors of North Carolina" "Pat McCrory is the Governor of North Carolina". Almost all of the above article forms use the formal title, which I believe is usually and properly capitalized. --Golbez (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but the issue that determines it is whether or not you are talking about a particular person. "There are three Lieutenant Governors of North Carolina" is grammatically incorrect. It's "There are three lieutenant governors of North Carolina." Furthermore, the Wikipedia MOS has a policy of avoiding capitalized titles where it is not a proper noun. This proposal should be going in the opposite direction. If you look at State_constitutional_officers_of_the_United_States, you will notice that only Attorneys General, and Auditors break the pattern, and they are the ones that should be moved to "attorneys general", and "auditors." Greg Bard (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment the redlinks should atleast become bluelink redirects if these are not moved. -- (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Since the term "lieutenant governor" is only capitalised when it is inluded in the full formal title of an office--the Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia--or when referring to a specific individual--Lieutenant Governor David Onley--capitalising it in the way propopsed is improper. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I got more upper case than lower case while Googling. 117Avenue (talk) 05:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, have you thought that through at all?! There are valid uses of both ways depending on how it's used. A google search result will give you ZERO insight into which is more appropriate to the particular use at hand. In our case here, one can use both the grammatical standard, and the Wikipedia policy to see that the lowercase is the correct use.Greg Bard (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to the grammar/style standards identified above and covered at WP:JOBTITLES. —ADavidB 06:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Standard style in the real world for titles in the format "XX of YY" is capitalized, Wikipedia's "rules" have disregarded this, or people have chosen to interpret them awry, as the normal usage in this format should be capitalized.....also "Premier of British Columbia" for example; the Wiki obsession with lower caps is out of control IMO, and winds up influencing English at large when it should reflect it; not dictate it.Skookum1 (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
It sounds like you've been hanging out with our Googling friend 117 over there. The rules of grammar are not a popularity contest. The valid use of capital or lower case depends on the usage, and we are perfectly capable of seeing without controversy that the lowercase is the correct one in this case. Greg Bard (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
It isn't without controversy that the lowercase is the correct one, as you claim; it's only correct according to a strict and overbearing interpretation of Wikipedia's self-written "rules"........117Avenue and I are not exactly friends btw. As noted above by someone, a google yields the proper capitalized use. Your condescension that you "we are perfectly capable" isn't borne out by the facts of usage in the real world.Skookum1 (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I certainly wasn't intending to be condescending at all, so I apologize. However, suffice it to say, that the reasons given (by you and 117) for your support of this proposal are not valid at all. No it isn't controversial AT ALL, unless you mean in the "teach the controversy" sense where someone creates a phony controversy, and claims we all need to stop and pay attention to it. There isn't a single academic department where this is a controversy, nor are there competing handbooks of grammar on the issue. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia's policy on lowercase titles either. In this case, the lowercase is grammatical independent of that. Furthermore, since Google will pick up valid cases where it is capitalized when the title refers to a particular person, AND valid cases where it is used without reference to any particular person, just HOW exactly is a Google hit count supposed to be a valid indicator either way?!? Also, what I meant by "perfectly capable" is that the answer to this question is a knowable one, unlike questions of religion or politics for instance. We can analyse the situation and know the valid answer with certainty. Just look it up in any grammar handbook. Greg Bard (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Your grammar handbook won't have anything on official styles, and if it does it's anything but official. This is "List of [individuals who have held the title of] Lieutenant Governor of X" and not a generic article about the office. A similar difference would be between "he lived in the city of Vancouver for 20 years" vs "he worked for the City of Vancouver" i.e. where something/someone specific is meant. "Powers of lieutenant governors" would be different as it's the general terms of reference of the office, not a list of actual lieutenant-governors...and note, I was raised (in British Columbia) to use the hyphenated form, which is now no longer on their official style, but for a very long time was; and if I'd written an essay for high school or university back in those days (up til the 70s) I would have been marked down for not using the capitalized form even if the person holding the office was not named. Again, this is a list of people whose title was "Lieutenant Governor of X", not something in the general sense. Also, and it's an older style true, the proper grammatical form of this title should be List of Lieutenants Governor of X" or, according to the older form, "List of Lieutenants-Governor of X"..... it could be that the correct plural is only used in Canada, though......also fading as a long-time usage is the correct Canadian pronunciation, "LEFTenant Governor".Skookum1 (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay the "City of Vancouver" refers to the government entity (you know, the stuff managed by the city council: the employees, the city owned buildings, public works trucks, etcetera) and the "city of Vancouver" is the area inside the city limits. So again, you don't really seem to understand what determines capitalization. Thank goodness the consensus is forming, and I won't have to continue this painful issue with you. Greg Bard (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
There's right and wrong, and then there's consensus. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, it's the way I was taught - that when the title is stated as a title, it's capitalized. This is a list of particular individuals who held the title, and whose title was in caps "Lieutenant Governor of X"......that title was not "lieutenant governor of X. Different if it was e.g. List of lieutenant governors of Canadian provinces but it's not, this is about lists of titled personages (and being viceroys in Canada, carries some extra weight as "titled personage". Guess I'll pick the grey hairs out of my style this age, nothing is sacred, especially tradition.......btw "MOS sucks" and it's not the first time that section has been misquoted to serve a gaffe against the language (re MOSHYPHEN and MOSDASH and the ongoing abuse of the latter. Skookum1 (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose unnecessary capitalization per MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 05:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. It's not just that it looks silly without the capitals (although it does) but it's not logical either... as a title, it would be downright insulting to omit the capitals. If the guidelines say otherwise then the guidelines need tweaking. Andrewa (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
<facepalm> I just want to make sure I understand your rationale: It looks silly, and standard grammar is insulting. This is the very worst of Wikipedia's process. aye aye aye aye aye. When the title refers to an individual person, it is capitalized (perhaps this rule was adopted just so as to not insult people). However, when it is a collective reference, it is lower case. This is ridiculous.Greg Bard (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
So are you suggesting that "United States Attorney General" is capitalized incorrectly, because it is referring to the office and not a specific person? If not the please elaborate what you mean. --Golbez (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Capitalizing the title of the article is fine because we are talking about the office itself, and that is a proper noun. However the category name "United States attorneys general" is NOT a proper noun. Greg Bard (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.