Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 May

Church Fathers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

Editors opposing the move have offered opinions as to the degree of capitalisation in sources without reference to any actual evidence to substantiate their assertions and largely without any reference to the prevailing P&G. They have also opined that the lowercase form has different contexts without any evidence to substantiate this conjecture. With reference to specific examples and a search of google scholar more generally, it was evidenced that there was no substance to the assertion of different contexts for LC and UC and therefore, no reasonable reason to question the validity of the ngram evidence presented. The ngram evidence (including contexts capturing prose usage) were presented in conjunction with google scholar evidence as a cross comparison and to confirm context. Actual evidence (as opposed to unsubstantiated conjecture) indicates near equal capitalisation for the two forms - ie the proportions of capitalisation for each form are not significantly different. Viewing the question through the lens of the prevailing P&G, there is no reasonable reason to retain capitalisation when actual evidence indicates about equal capitalisation. From discussion with the closer, it appears they have assessed the individual VOTES viewed in isolation from the fuller debate - giving weight to unsubstantiated opinion where debate with reference to actual evidence shows that such assertions lack credibility. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. « uninvolved » This closure was reasonable and in line with closing instructions. Gentle caution to focus on the closure and not reargue the move request. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 06:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  This does focus on the closure, closing instructions including WP:DISCARD and why unsubstantiate opinion and conjecture without reference to prevailing P&G carries little or no weight against arguments that address the evidential criteria of prevailing P&G with reference to verifiable evidence. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved), I just read the RM discussion and there was no other way to close it. 'Church Fathers' is the recognizable name pertaining to the early Christian scholars and theologians, etc., who formed the religion. 'Father' in the current context means 'priest' (since Catholics call their priests 'Father'), which is a separate topic and not to be confused with this one. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved) I disagree with the outcome - a simple academic source search shows this is often capitalised but not consistently captialised, and that there exist instances where the phrase "church fathers" does not refer to the topic here, but that is my own research, not the discussion. This is an instance where the discussion was firmly against but the evidence against those who are against isn't clear from the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 14:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  In this case, those arguing against offered personal opinions as to what sources did but no actual evidence to substantiate the claims. The actual evidence that was offered in the debate showed that these claims were false - ie those arguing against the move did so on the basis of a premise that was demonstrably false. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse (uinvolved) as the close that reflected consensus. I will add that if I had taken part in the RM, I would have opposed de-capitalization, because Catholics, and probably Eastern Orthodox, use Church Fathers as a proper noun. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - The real issue should be one that is not for Move Review, and that is how to limit these small wars to de-capitalize phrases that are used as proper names. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse « uninvolved » The close was reasonable and within the guidelines. The nom states: Editors opposing the move have offered opinions as to the degree of capitalisation in sources without reference to any actual evidence to substantiate their assertions and largely without any reference to the prevailing P&G. In reading the thread, I find multiple instances of opponents citing evidence (including Britannica, a reliable tertiary source usually considered authoritative for usage) and P&G, and refuting evidence and arguments put forth by supporters. This was a well-attended RM where editors (mostly) engaged with one another's arguments and the close reflects the consensus.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Ethiopian Revolution (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

In raising the matter with the closer, it would appear that the closer has determined no consensus on the basis of tied VOTES rather than the strength of argument viewed through the lens of P&G and evidence presented, which does not support that the title even reaches a simple majority of capitalisation in prose. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Endorsed. « uninvolved » This RM closure is reasonable and is consistent with closing instructions. It should be endorsed and a waiting period of three months or so is in line with a no-consensus outcome. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 03:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved) – just because an involved editor has their own assessment of MOS:MILTERMS that is different from the closer's assessment of MOS:MILTERMS doesn't mean their version is right. The discussion does not support the nom's assertion of determin[ing] no consensus on the bases of tied VOTES rather than the strength of argument. MRV is not "I don't like the outcome" – it's a place to bring up issues with the close itself. From the discussion and reasoning, the close is well-reasoned. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

  Chicdat, only one comment mentions MOS:MILTERMS and it presumes a lower threshold for caps. The editor presents ngram evidence to contexturalise the search for prose usage and this indicates that the title does not even reach 50% capitalisation (ie they supported the move). Your comment is way off beam in respect to your first sentence. Another editor refers to a Google Scholar search and that lowercase is more common in prose. Contrary to this, they opine that it is a trivial proper name (whatever that is) and should still be capitalised despite the evidence. The discussion refers to evidence from GS and Google Books, not just ngrams as the closer indicates in the close. Strength of argument comes from assessing evidence in the light of P&G. The close states that the opposers have only indicated evidence but not how this relates to P&G, while supporters have done both. If this is an accurate and well-reasoned close the former would carry very little weight - thereby indicating that no consensus has been arrived at on the bases of tied VOTES rather than the strength of argument. We also see one opposing comment to effect that it will eventually become consistently capped in sources - an argument with no basis in P&G - which they tacitly acknowledge through a reference to WP:CRYSTAL. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - Not another Move Review having to do with Wikipedia's eccentric capitalization rule! Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• Endorsed (involved), after two relistings the "no consensus" close both makes sense and accurately summarizes the situation. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse as an accurate reflection of consensus. This is a case where Use Common Sense is as important as an eccentric MOS rule. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved) I believe the standard here is set out by Myceteae - not "always" as per the nom, but "usually." And I think Myceteae had clearly the best analysis of the facts here. That being said, there's just enough doubt about what "usually" means in the discussion that no consensus is probably the best result. SportingFlyer T·C 19:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  SportingFlyer, Myceteae and DL both refer to usually. While their interpretations may or may not be the same, they reach the same conclusion to support. Myceteae presents evidence that the capped version in prose is not used more often than not (ie a 50% threshold). It is confirmed by google scholar results: As Kowal2701 concedes, there seems to be more lowercase use in prose. There is no debate to suggest that usually means or includes something that is less often than not. Where then lies the doubt? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  There's just enough doubt over whether the n-grams show "usually" with this one. I'd try again in a couple months. SportingFlyer T·C 06:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  A close should assess the debate and an MR is similarly constrained to considering WP:RMCIDC and WP:DISCARD. It was the place of the debate to create doubt as to the evidence and Myceteae has not just relied on ngrams. There was plenty of opportunity to debate Myceteae's evidence or conclusion. While I might have debated that "usually" creates a substantially lower threshold than usually applies, their evidence and conclusion nonetheless supported lowercase. The meaning of "usually" as a point of debate has become the flavour of the month in RMs falling under MOS:MILTERMS. As an aside, you may be interested in these and how "usually" is most usually interpreted quantitatively. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  Honestly, I find providing those links somewhat condescending. SportingFlyer T·C 15:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Endorse and SNOW close!. Mast303 (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC) (Closer) Cinderella157 (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved) accurate reflection of consensus. --Plumber (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)