User talk:Chicdat

NCCAPS reform

I've been quietly observing the battle (pun intended) over strict invocation of WP:NCCAPS, especially in reference to <ordinal> battle of <place> articles. I agree the current guideline is too absolute and we should treat terms as proper nouns if a majority of reliable sources do so. It looks like Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)/Archive_66#Overturning_NCCAPS got archived, probably due to overly frequent archiving at that busy page. I think if a well thought out proposal for a change is made via RfC at WT:NCCAPS it might lead to something happening. I believe consensus would align with our view; this does not come out in RM discussions given the current word choice at NCCAPS and like-minded users opting to stay out of individual RMs when faced with the current guideline. Thoughts? Mdewman6 (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Otherwise, I am worried what's next: we have Battle of Fredericksburg but Second battle of Fredericksburg? Mdewman6 (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The reason the lowercasers hold sway over the NCCAPS move request is because the letter of the law, for the most part, supports them. (The constant bludgeoning from a few editors is also a factor.) Thus actual change in our practices on Wikipedia is the only real way to make common sense, at last, rule. Otherwise we will continue with A few weeks ago I attempted an RFC but it was badly malformed and went nowhere. If we could draft a decent RFC to change the guideline from "always" to "(substantial) majority", which was received favorably at the village pump, I think we can likely change the text of the guideline. Sammy D III's comment at Talk:War of the cities is telling: These are people on a MOS mission, part of which is de-capitalize military terms which do not follow grammar, instead are used as proper names or common terms. Commonly an article is moved without discussion, then if somebody objects there is already an alliance in place to support the move. Pinging Randy Kryn so we can all collaborate to make a draft. Thanks for your comment, I feel like we might at last be able to reform this nonsensical guideline that allows things like this. (By the way, I thought you might want to read WT:MOSCAPS#RfC on the meaning of "usually" as used in MOS:MILTERMS. Our RFC may have already begun.) 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you care but I just posted this. I'm not sure if I should notify about this post there, otherwise no reply needed. Sammy D III (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

The word "usually" seems one obvious choice for choosing a proper name, and if a name is usually uppercased then Wikipedia should accept its status as an accepted proper name. Some proper names are also covered by MOS:CELESTIALOBJECTS, MOS:GEOCAPS, and, as of now, MOS:MILTERMS, which could be used as templates to finally bring common sense into the "naming of names" on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Personal opinion, I'll leave if you want: If I create content with a source that uses a proper name, I use the proper name. If that is changed to a generic phrase it is no longer supported by the source I used. The meaning of the source has been changed. If part of a source has been compromised then the whole source must be compromised, correct? You can't cherry-pick which facts you use, either the source is RS or it isn't. That reference and anything it supports has to be removed.

They hit the military hard, and it affects stuff that I've done. This can be important in titles. I can't go back and fix every one, ownership and all, and many don't matter anyway. But they were written as proper names, my meanings have been changed with no other sources contradicting them. Proper names! I think one editor has said that the organization that makes a proper name is Primary and can't be used to support it.

I'm RS over MOS and don't like having my facts being changed because of grammar. Sammy D III (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)