Talk:List of mayors and lord mayors of Adelaide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia / Adelaide  (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon List of mayors and lord mayors of Adelaide is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Adelaide.
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance

Requested 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Favonian (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

– These were incorrectly changed during a massive mostly correct capitalization fix (although every non-redirection at [1] should probably be reconsidered). Both Mayor and Lord Mayor are proper nouns and are reflected as such in these and other articles, elsewhere on the web and in Google Books. Mark Hurd (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Mayor is a job and a "common noun", not a "proper noun". See e.g. this. The US Congress agrees that it shouldn't be capitalised in this specific instance either[2], but counterexamples are available as well. The same goes for "lord mayors of Adelaide" and the like[3]. Note that e.g. here, the first occurrence is only capitalized because it is a headline: in the text, it isn't capitalized, and it is that convention we follow. A specific "Lord Mayor" may be capitalized, because then the title is used instead of the name ("In 1982, the Lord Mayor did this and that"), but as a generic title ("the mayors of X have all been men"), it is no longer a proper noun. This is confusing at times, but we shouldn't let that confusion force us to make mistakes. Fram (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Question. and it is that convention we follow - Do we? Is that defined somewhere? (I'd like to read what it actually says.) Pdfpdf (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
      • We don't write article titles as if they were book titles or newspaper headlines, wrt capitalization. This is the basic rule of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), the convention that "rules" move requests like this one: "For page titles, always use lowercase after the first word, and do not capitalize second and subsequent words, unless the title is a proper noun." It also recommends the Chicgo Manual of Style, which gives as recommendation not to capitalize "mayor" in cases like this one ([4]). Fram (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Interesting. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
    • But these aren't articles about the roles of mayor and Lord Mayor (I still can't bring myself to not capitalise this term even when referring to the role) and who has performed them, they are a list of Mayors and Lord Mayors. Mark Hurd (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I have now had a look at the searches you provided as links, where possible (some of the searches fail now or had quotes changed to "), and although the specific examples you site do show "mayor" and "lord mayor" in lower case, the searches themselves find many other "Lord Mayor" references. Before I decided to try to get these fixed I checked where other articles on Wikipedia were at (see the prefix search above, and also note List of Lord Mayors of London) and the Google Books Ngram of "lord mayor" versus "Lord Mayor" and "mayor" versus "Mayor"; the first Ngram is very convincing and the second somewhat so given these articles are not about the roles but the people. Mark Hurd (talk) 09:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
      • The articles are about the roles (compare to e.g. "list of librarians of Adelaide"), a list of who had the role X. When you do the ngrams for the plural, not the singular, the results are much less clear, with e.g. a clear preference for "mayor" over "Mayor"[5]. It looks from the search as if "mayor" is more often considered a common noun, and "Lord Mayor" a proper noun, probably due to the influence of the "Lord" part. Fram (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. If the outcome is that these articles should remain at the current title, then List of Mayors and Lord Mayors of Sydney should be moved to the decapitalised version. Jenks24 (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
    • And so should the first line of every one of these articles! Mark Hurd (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Per Mark Hurd. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Despite the fact that his assertion that they are proper nouns is incorrect? Fram (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I know that's your POV, but is your POV a fact? And whether it is or not, is it the convention we follow? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
      • It's not really my POV, I provided the POV from the 1995 book "English syntax" to get a neutral and more authoritative opinion. As for the convention, I (have now) replied to that above, but I thought that as someone who regularly participates in such capitalization-move discussions, you would know what the applicable Wikipedia naming convention was... Fram (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Uh-ha. Also interesting. As is your comment: as someone who regularly participates in such capitalization-move discussions. Personally, I wasn't aware that I "regularly participate" in such discussions. But then again, I have a bad memory. Thanks for your reply. I guess I need to consider this in more depth before commenting further. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
        • My reply was a bit more grumpy than I intended, sorry. It's probably just the coincidence that in the few capitalization related move requests I participated, I often encountered you (some military-related ones, and/or some bishop-related ones, IIRC). For some reason I jumped from this to "Pdfpdf is a regular move request replier". Fram (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid I have to confess that I'm more convinced by the "support" arguments, (particularly the latest ones), than the "oppose". I don't accept the opinion: the "assertion that they are proper nouns is incorrect". Pdfpdf (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.


Two for and one against, and you close it with the comment "no consensus"? Please enlighten me. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should have been at least relist, especially seeing as the current situation is inconsistent with Sydney, Perth and Manchester, as well as London and the content of these articles as mentioned above. Mark Hurd (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

As I have mentioned to Favonian, after reading the guidelines for consensus for moving, I begrudgingly accept this is a valid RM outcome, but it does now leave me not being able to edit these List of Mayors/mayors pages becaused "correcting" Mayor to mayor and moving other existing List of Mayors/Lord Mayors to their lowercase equivalents would be WP:POINTs. So the inconsistency is entrenched until someone ignores all rules and fixes the problem one way or another. (NB "fixing" the problem by changing the remaining article titles to lower case means you need to also change the contents of all relevent articles to lowercase too.) Mark Hurd (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)