Talk:National Character Area
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
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. 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: Merged with RM at Talk:Local nature reserve, see there. No such user (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
National character area → National Character Area – This is a proper name for specific areas in England designated by the official body, Natural England, not a generic article about national character areas in general. It is normally spelt with capitals even in the middle of a sentence. Bermicourt (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC) --Bermicourt (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support. National Character Area is a specific term with a specific meaning, and the words mean more than the sum of their parts. This is a recognised usage for capital letters, not a nicety of house style. Google supports the usage of capitals (all pages on the first page of a search for "national character areas" use capitals). The phrase is meaningless in isolation, it has no generic meaning. Dave.Dunford (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2014 (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.
Move discussion in progress
[edit]There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Local nature reserve which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Requested move 1 July 2016
[edit]- The following is a closed 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: Move. After 27 days and 2 relistings, we have no formal opposition to the nominator's position. Cúchullain t/c 14:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
National character area → National Character Area – "National Character Area" is not a universal generic term like "nature reserve", but the specific proper name for an officially designated UK region. As such it is invariably spelt with capitals e.g. the official government site is titled "National Character Area profiles: data for local decision making." And of the 10 valid entries at Google Books, 9 spell it "National Character Area"; one uses "national Character Area" and none use the present article title. Examples of typical usage: "Map shows ecological network coverage as a proportion of each National Character Area" in Mapping Wilderness by Carver and Fritz; and "A recent example is a substantial study conducted with members of the public who live in, work in or close to, or visit selected landscape character areas drawn from the National Character Area framework." in Evaluation of Methodologies for Visual Impact Assessments by Churchward. Bermicourt (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support, as before. National Character Area is a specific term with a specific meaning, and the words mean more than the sum of their parts. This is a recognised usage for capital letters, not a nicety of house style. Google supports the usage of capitals (all pages on the first page of a search for "national character areas" use capitals). The phrase is meaningless in isolation, it has no generic meaning. Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Procedural
opposeremark. If moved, this would contradict the consensus (and the strong opposition to the proposal) from Talk:Local nature reserve#Requested move from two years ago. I don't see what possibly could have changed in the meantime to justify repeating the same move with the same arguments. Why this RM is not repeated there? No such user (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)- Comment. Because there was an assumption that the situation for all those terms was the same. This proposal argues that it is not and that this term needs to be treated on its merits. In order to do that, would you be willing to withdraw your procedural oppose? Otherwise we may never get to discuss it properly. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- @No such user: Not sure you saw this response. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, missed it indeed. Changed it to "remark". I did check the Google results and the NCAs are indeed almost universally spelled title-case. I still have reservations whether, as a mere term of art, it deserves to be treated as a proper noun, but as nobody from the MOS crowd participating in the Local nature reserve RM came here to comment, I don't give sufficient care to the matter in order to oppose. Stroke my "oppose", above. No such user (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd never heard the phrase "term of art" before, but it's useful to have a name for this concept – thanks. It's allowed me to find support for my contention that capitalising terms of art (as in the case of National Character Area) is regarded, at least in some circumstances, as justified. I know it's talking specifically about legal contract writing, but this source suggests capitals are legitimately used for terms of art. Key quote: "Capitalizing the word Court every time you use it is respectful, but confusing to the reader — because the reader expects the capital letter indicates a particular court, the equivalent of a proper name or a term of art." (my emphasis). Dave.Dunford (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, missed it indeed. Changed it to "remark". I did check the Google results and the NCAs are indeed almost universally spelled title-case. I still have reservations whether, as a mere term of art, it deserves to be treated as a proper noun, but as nobody from the MOS crowd participating in the Local nature reserve RM came here to comment, I don't give sufficient care to the matter in order to oppose. Stroke my "oppose", above. No such user (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- @No such user: Not sure you saw this response. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. Because there was an assumption that the situation for all those terms was the same. This proposal argues that it is not and that this term needs to be treated on its merits. In order to do that, would you be willing to withdraw your procedural oppose? Otherwise we may never get to discuss it properly. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support: a search suggests that National Character Area is nearly always capitalised. Ebonelm (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2016 (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.