Talk:Lyndley Craven

Biography: Science and Academia Stub‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Lyndley Craven 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany 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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about a botanist or someone who contributed to the field of botany.

Speedy deletion contested

I have expanded it and added references. Is it better now? Thanks. —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | ☮✌☮ 00:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Principal Research Scientist

Lyndley Craven was a taxonomic botanist (common noun) who held the position of Principal Research Scientist (proper noun) at the Australian National Botanic Garden. "Principal Research Scientist" in this case is a proper noun, like Prime Minister of the United Kingdom or Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, not a common noun like "a school teacher", "a research scientist" or "a taxonomic botanist". Gderrin (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gderrin: It looks like a plain old job title. Search WP for "the principal research scientist" and you'll find 7 articles; search for "a principal research scientist" and you'll find 34 articles. Many, many organizations have a "principal research scientist", just as many organizations have a "managing editor". The job of "principal research scientist" is to manage "research scientists", just as the job of "managing editor" is to manage "editors". Look up "managing editor" in any good dictionary and you'll see that it is a common noun. If the position of "Principal Research Scientist of the United Kingdom" existed, I'm sure the results of any vote would be to capitalize the title, but Craven is just a highly educated and well-paid botanist, and perhaps a very nice person. Chris the speller ^yack 14:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris the speller: - thank you for taking the trouble to explain. Whether or not the title should be capitalised may be a grey area, however two reasons for using capitals in this case are (1) the reference uses capitals^[1] and (2) the relevant page in Wikipedia states "A proper noun is a noun that in its primary application refers to a unique entity". There is only one principal research scientist at the Australian National Botanic Gardens - it is a unique entity. ("Highly educated" etc. do not apply - Craven is deceased.) Common nouns listed in a dictionary are often also proper nouns, including "managing director" - as on this page. Whether or not capital letters are used has little or nothing to do with the importance of the postion, whether it is the United Kingdom or Woop Woop. I also wonder if the reason there are seven articles with "the principal research scientist" rather than "the Principal Research Scientist" is that you made the change, and if they should also be capitalised? Thank you also for not reverting my reversion without discussing it here. I'm happy to discuss it more here, if you like. Gderrin (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gderrin: Regarding the search count I mentioned above, 7 articles use the definite article "the", while 34 articles use the indefinite article "a"; I was pointing out that so much use of an indefinite article tends to indicate that it is not a proper name, and I was not touting the capitalization or lack of it in those articles. The WP article Proper noun says "proper names in their primary application cannot normally be modified by an article or other determiner (such as any or another)" (boldface for emphasis mine). In the sentence "He walked down crooked lane until he reached the river", you immediately see an error, that the article "a" was omitted or that "Crooked Lane" should have been capitalized. In "He walked down a Crooked Lane until he reached the river", the indefinite article creates doubt; is there more than one lane named Crooked Lane in that vicinity? Possible, but unlikely, so the capitalization is probably spurious. Frequent use of the indefinite article militates pretty strongly against a term being a proper name. Chris the speller ^yack 01:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris the speller: Again, thanks for taking the trouble. I do not see what difference the number of times a common noun is used prevents its use as a proper noun. From the opposite standpoint, it's possible that if you were to count the number of times "managing director" or "prime minister" was used compared to "Managing Director" or "Prime Minister", there would be many more of the latter in each case. Nevertheless, "managing director" and "prime minister" would often be the correct form. With respect to the importance of the definite/indefinite article, I do agree. Usually, or at least often, the definite artice implies a proper noun ("the Managing Director"/"the Prime Minister"), whereas an indefinite article suggests a common noun ("a managing director"/"a prime minister"). I don't see how the line you quoted from the WP page Proper noun is relevant. (By the way, I do not intend to change any of your other work. I'm sure I would usually agree with your corrections.) Gderrin (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gderrin: I had assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that you were familiar with the MoS WP:JOBTITLES. In WP we do not even capitalize king except in very strict cases. In the news.co.uk link above, every job title is, not surprisingly, capitalized, but WP strives to take an encyclopedic tone, not mimicking the self-aggrandizement that is displayed in company brochures and web pages. WP allows exceptions to not capitalizing job titles only in the three cases mentioned in WP:JOBTITLES, and this article does not fit any of those cases. Chris the speller ^yack 04:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris the speller: When people disagree, they tend to be able to find things that they believe support their own argument and are unable to see the other side. For example, I can't see how the MoS page you refer to supports your argument. If "King of France" is capitalised, so should "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" and "Principal Research Scientist". Lyndley Craven was a research scientist at the Australian National Botanic Gardens who became Principal Research Scientist. On the other hand, you seem unable to accept that The Encyclopedia of Australian Science source is a valid source using capital letters. The source quoted in that encyclopedia capitalises "Principal Research Scientist" on page 18.^[2] But I think perhaps we should declare a stalemate while things are still friendly. I am sure we both have better things to do. Thanks again for your courtesy. Gderrin (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gderrin: There is simply no difference between "... became the Principal Research Scientist of the ..." and "... became the chief financial officer of the ...". In WP we do not capitalize "chief financial officer"; it is not a proper name, and is not treated as a proper name just because there is only one such position in an organization. I never said that we should not capitalize "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom", but we do not capitalize "... became prime minister in 1940". It is then just a job title. If you do not wish to discuss this further here, I understand. You may take it up on the talk page of WP:JOBTITLES, or let it go, and other editors will likely change the capitalization to conform to the MoS. Chris the speller ^yack 15:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Craven, Lyndley Alan (Lyn) (1945 - 2014)". Encyclopedia of Australian Science. Retrieved 5 June 2017.
^ Lepschi, Brendan J.; Monro, Anna M.; Cowley, Kirsten J. (2016). "Lyndley (Lyn) Alan Craven 3 September 1945 - 11 July 2014" (PDF). Australasian Systematic Botany Society Newsletter. 167: 17–30. Retrieved 6 June 2017.

[eoas-1] "Craven, Lyndley Alan (Lyn) (1945 - 2014)". Encyclopedia of Australian Science. Retrieved 5 June 2017.

[ASBS-2] Lepschi, Brendan J.; Monro, Anna M.; Cowley, Kirsten J. (2016). "Lyndley (Lyn) Alan Craven 3 September 1945 - 11 July 2014" (PDF). Australasian Systematic Botany Society Newsletter. 167: 17–30. Retrieved 6 June 2017.

[1]

[2]