User:Cinderella157/sandbox 1

WP:P&G

WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS are cited as the most relevant guidelines. WP:AT, though not cited is the prevailing policy and implied.

WP:AT gives voice to WP:NCCAPS, which inturn gives voice to MOS:CAPS. Read in sequence, there is no reasonable doubt as to their applicability.

WP:MOS is cited for: best treated with common sense but no cogent argument is made that this is an occasional exceptions may apply.

WP:SSF is a sourced essay.

WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is linked to refer to arguments based on personal biases rather than policies or guidelines.

WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CONLEVEL and WP:NOTBURO - argument invoking WP:CONSENSUS is not supported by WP:CONLEVEL or WP:NOTBURO.

WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL - trying to predict trends.

MOS:ACRO - capitalisation in an acronym v capitalisation in the full term.

MOS:EMPHCAPS - not for emphasis.

WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT to assert that academic sources carry more weight on a matter of caitalisation.

WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS (and by inference WP:AT) are broadly acknowledged therein as the prevailing WP:P&G. It is notable that MOS:CAPS creates a burden to avoid unnecessary capitalisation.

Closing directions - determining consensus

Per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus: Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions.

Wikipedia:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome: {{tq:Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, nor is it determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. The closer is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant. If the consensus of reasonable arguments is opposite to the closer's view, they are expected to decide according to the consensus. The closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument.}}

Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions#Strength of arguments

To summarise overall, a strong argument is made against the criteria of established authorities and particularly WP:P&G that represent the broad community consensus. They must accurately represent their spirit and intent in their fullest context. The argument must be supported by evidence. The evidence must be relevant to the criteria and should be able to be subjected to scrutiny. It must be accurately represented. The conclusions drawn to either support or oppose must be reasonable and rational - ie consistent with the evidence and criteria. The distinction that might be made is that wich is objective v that which is subjective.

Evidence

The discussion has focussed on n-gram evidence in many permutations presented by both sides. The n-gram evidence does not distinguish usage in prose (the main criteria) from normal title case usage - ie it tends to overrepresent usage of capitalisation in prose and allowance needs to be made for this.

An observation of evidence from google scholar was cited. It could be subjected to scrutiny.

An observation of evidence from google books was cited wrt context (ie that ngram evidence for "Indus Valley C|civilisation" referred to the Bronze Age civilisation from the Indus Valley. It could be subjected to scrutiny.

References were made to a small number of specific works.

A detailed review of a collected work was made by F&f. It showed that "Indus Valley C|civilisation" was only referred to in citations and not in prose.

The guidance is for usage in a substantial majority of sources. This can only be established by a representative random sample of sources.

!Votes

S DL(OP) objective - evidence & criteria

s DV subjective

o JB - subjective criticism but no evidence. Would equate caps of initialism to caps of expanded False argument per MOS:ACRO

o Ch - per JB + one source.

s T - per DV and MOS:CAPS

S Ci - evidence of OP and criteria

o F&f - opinion

S SMc - Evidence of OP and google scholar and criteria

o RP - aergues ngrams lack context and lazy (context issue addressed). Appeal to common sense?

o K - opinion: itis a proper name

S/s C - per Smc +

o T - support retaining the status quo. unreasoned

o W - per RP

o Sp - for consistency?

o CT - ad hominem

o DW - per RP, Sp & CT

S Am - reasoned:evidence and criteria

o L - unevidenced reference to sources

o N - "Generally seen as a proper name."

o V - "Reliable sources treat this as a proper noun."

o SF - anecdotal, capping of initialism, "is more popular"

o NH - opinion.

S+s = 7 O+o = 15

I don't know where the other opposing !vote is? If it is the comment by Bookku, then it would be "o".

Other discussions

F&f: What is it you don't understand? We don't capitalize "civilization" everywhere. We do, ideally, only in the page title or section titles.

There is a discussion between Ci and F&f that would conclude that this is not a case to be be settled by the rules of grammar, but by usage and that such a phrase as IVC would be considered a proper name when the capitalised form becomes institutionalised. This conforms with the MOS:CAPS and a substantial majority.

F&f presents multiple n-grams and asserts: In 10 of 12 categories, IVC leads; in the remaining two IVC and IVc are tied. Am responds: {{tq|The point is, however, that our bar for capitalisation isn't a tie or a narrow lead for the title-case variant, MOS:CAPS requires a "substantial majority".

F&f presents further n-grams and asserts: Is the consistent majority usage of the last 20 years .... SMc responds: Concur with Dicklyon. F&F simply doesn't know how to read N-grams correctly and doesn't understand the guideline. If source usage is wildly mixed, which is the case here, WP uses lower case.

Ch would continue If we did this without any smoothing ... IVC comes up ahead with an overwhelming majority. This is addressed by Ci that no allowance was made for title case uses v prose. Cases were made. Wherein lies the strength of the two cases?

F&f would provide a logical "proof". It appears to fail at the point that it would rely on the "rules" of grammar, noting that they previously acknowledge this is not a case to be be settled by the rules of grammar, but by usage.

The main distinction in the two cases would appear to be the distinction between leading or a simple majority v a substantial majority per MOS:CAPS.