![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
![]() | On 29 April 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to AFC championship game. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Why, exactly, do we need to specify the Tennessee Oilers, Los Angeles Raiders, and Baltimore Colts in the Most common matchups section if those particular versions of those teams never played in a certain year? The Baltimore Colts never faced the Patriots, the Los Angeles Raiders never faced the Steelers, and the Tennessee Oilers certainly never faced anyone in the AFC Championship Game. I'm certainly for including the current version of the teams (Las Vegas Raiders/Tennessee Titans) but otherwise it's just a bunch of unnecessary clutter. We may as well start inserting the Dallas Texans or Boston Patriots if that's the case. PointGiven ( talk) 00:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Consider adding a section "Records by division", just like the "AFC Championship Game" article. Alielmi1207 ( talk) 03:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2002-present 2620:8D:8000:10C5:70CF:FA59:ED05:5283 ( talk) 03:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Would it be possible to change the text from "Arrowhead Stadium" to "GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium"? It is the official name of the stadium, and "(GEHA Field at) Arrowhead Stadium" would work as well. 136.33.182.23 ( talk) 05:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:ACC Championship Game which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 23:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 15 May 2024. The result of the move review was endorsed. |
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre ( talk) 20:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC) Edit: As per a request on my talk page, I'll share the reasoning for closing this the way I did:
“ | @ Gonzo fan2007: et al had the correct interpretation of MOS:SPORTSCAPS. The pre-Super Bowl championship games (and the conference championships, for that matter) are more often capitalised than not, especially as they're trademarked. Sceptre ( talk) 23:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC) | ” |
Thanks, Sceptre ( talk) 15:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
– Use sentence case since this is not a proper name – not nearly consistently capped in sources. Dicklyon ( talk) 17:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Some data: When these articles were created in 2005, they were full of over-capitalization (title, section headings, table headers), as was not unusual at that time (perhaps before we had a MOS:CAPS?). Some of that got fixed, but not the titles. The fully lowercase form was most common in books through 2004, but since then, many more sources have adopted the capitalized forms, probably influenced by Wikipedia, but they're still not close to "consistently capitalized" in sources. See n-gram stats for NFC and for AFC. Dicklyon ( talk) 17:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Specific competition titles and events (or series thereof) are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in independent sources. Note the difference between this wording and the
consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources(emphasis from source) wording quoted in the nomination.
...usually capitalizedseems to be a lower bar to clear than the nominator's rationale. Withholding my opinion for now to hear the discussion from my Wikipedia colleagues. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
— Bagumba ( talk) 03:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions.
is arbitrarily used to denote a particular person, place, or thing without regard to any descriptive meaning the word or phrase may have(per Collins dictionary). These are not proper names but descriptive names - a game played to determine the champion team of the league in a particular year. They clearly do not meet being necessary capitalisation per MOS:CAPS. While English may capitalise for emphasis or distinction, per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS, we don't do that. Per the ngram evidence game is only capped about half the time and very clearly, it is not consistently capped in sources. Furthermore, game is unnecessary precision and concision is preferred over unnecessary precision per WP:TITLEDAB. Per those that oppose, championship is arguably near the threshold for being capped (60% in this ngram and 67% in this ngram). Higher thresholds are used for ngram evidence since it does not exclude uses of title case such as titles in references and headings. Contexturalising the search by adding the will exclude many but not all of these instances. A true proper name is capitalised with near universal consistency (see ngram for London). When something is lowercase more than 40% of the time or more than one-third of the time, capitalisation is clearly not necessary per MOS:CAPS and, for a descriptive term, when it is being capitalised, it is for emphasis and distinction. The argument that these are proper nouns fails because they are descriptive. The evidence of usage is not sufficiently compelling to show that these are consistently capped in sources to warrant capitalisation here. When the question of capitalisation is unclear, our default per MOS:CAPS is to lowercase. Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
proper names are proper names, that is a circular argument. They are capped but proper names are not descriptive (per the Collins dictionary). WP:COMMONSENSE would clearly tell us these are descriptive names. Your ngram tells us that the present titles are only capped as such about half the time in sources and are clearly incorrectly capitalised. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
is arbitrarily used to denote a particular person, place, or thing without regard to any descriptive meaning the word or phrase may have. As I said, most people are either unaware of this (perhaps you missed where I quoted the dictionary previously). Brooklyn is a proper noun for the place of that name. [The] Brooklyn Bridge is a name/noun phrase, where Brooklyn is acting as an attributive noun (ie like an adjective) to modify the common noun bridge. I don't think anybody would try to argue that bridge is other than a common noun for a structure that spans a gap and or water? Semantically, it is not a true proper noun|name. For places and prominent "things", English (in prose) has come to follow the cartographic convention of applying sentence case to such names (ie including descriptive nouns). You can see from this ngram that it was not always capitalised with the near universal consistency it is today. Capitalisation is a matter of orthography. What is or isn't a proper noun is a matter of grammar/onomastics/linguistics. In English, capitalisation is often used for emphasis or distinction. Because of this, the two are not mutually inclusive. All languages have proper names - even those that are not written or lack an upper case. Most other European languages are much more rigorous in respect to capitalisation and tend to only capitalise proper names - unlike English. The translation in Italian is ponte di Brooklyn and the Italian sources do not capitalise ponte - indicating again, that while Brooklyn Bridge may be near universally capitalised in English, it is not a proper noun.
proper names are proper nameswill make it so. Cinderella157 ( talk) 22:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
The Philadelphia Eagles aren't actually birds, so their name doesn't describe their physical characteristics. That's what's meant by the phrasing on the Collins entry.Exactly Oknazevad, Philadelphia Eagles is an arbitrary name in that it is not descriptive. They do not fly. They do not have feathers. It is a proper noun. On the other hand X Championship Game is inherently descriptive. That is exactly what the Collins entry would distinguish as the difference between a proper noun and a common noun. Just because one assert that something is a proper noun because they would capitalise it does not make it so. Cinderella157 ( talk) 21:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
A proper name may appear to have a descriptive meaning, even though it does not ...Because of this simplistic classification based on the false equivalence between capitalisation and what is a proper noun, one will often see the use of capitalisation for emphasis or distinction being rationalised as being a proper noun. We see unsubstantiated assertions like,
Clear proper nounsand circular arguments like,
You know how one makes such a distinction? Capitalization of proper nouns- yet we do not capitalise for distinction per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
are unambiguously proper nouns?. MOS:PROPERNOUN tells us to capitalise proper nouns but it doesn't tell us what a proper noun is. It only links to proper noun. Proper nouns may sometimes take the definite article (the) but otherwise, they are not modified by articles or other determiners. Also, they are not normally pluralised but, if they are, they are not singularised. Consider:
Can I have a Coca-Cola? Do you have any Coka-Cola? Can I have two Coka-Colas?Ummm - not a proper name here. Similarly,
... Cortina (manufactured by the company Ford) as an example of a "tradename but not a proper name"(footnote f at proper noun, with a source). The same can be said of company names. You have made an assumption not evidenced. In answering, I have not accepted your premise and now give more detailed reasons.
is arbitrarily used to denote a particular person, place, or thing[empasis added]. How do you parse the meaning of arbitrarily in this definition? Is not an arbitrary name distinct from a descriptive name? What is your source to include an event or idea? Communism and justice are ideas but these are not treated as proper nouns. Proper nouns are not unique. There are many people called John Smith. Proper nouns|names are specific in a particular context. However, descriptive names can also be very specific and even unique, through modifiers and the use of the definite article (the). Proper nouns are recognised in speech but we do not hear capital letters. We even recognise proper nouns in the absence of capital letters - Latin script did not make a case distinction before about 1300 but we still had proper nouns without such distinction. Consider these two phrases as they would be used in prose:
the 1995 AFC Championship Gameand
the 1995 AFC championship game. They both specifically name and describe a particular event. Apart from capitalisation (an the implication that the first is a proper noun), what is the difference in meaning? How do we know to use one but not the other? Does the capitalised form tell us that this is a significant or important event?
the NFL championship games. Is this also "generic" because it is pluralised? We generally don't use the in article titles or pluralise a title. Why then, would we capitalise the title but not the subject of the title as used in prose - unless we use title case but Wiki uses sentence case for titles. Cinderella157 ( talk) 12:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
![]() | On 29 April 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to AFC championship game. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Why, exactly, do we need to specify the Tennessee Oilers, Los Angeles Raiders, and Baltimore Colts in the Most common matchups section if those particular versions of those teams never played in a certain year? The Baltimore Colts never faced the Patriots, the Los Angeles Raiders never faced the Steelers, and the Tennessee Oilers certainly never faced anyone in the AFC Championship Game. I'm certainly for including the current version of the teams (Las Vegas Raiders/Tennessee Titans) but otherwise it's just a bunch of unnecessary clutter. We may as well start inserting the Dallas Texans or Boston Patriots if that's the case. PointGiven ( talk) 00:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Consider adding a section "Records by division", just like the "AFC Championship Game" article. Alielmi1207 ( talk) 03:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2002-present 2620:8D:8000:10C5:70CF:FA59:ED05:5283 ( talk) 03:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Would it be possible to change the text from "Arrowhead Stadium" to "GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium"? It is the official name of the stadium, and "(GEHA Field at) Arrowhead Stadium" would work as well. 136.33.182.23 ( talk) 05:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:ACC Championship Game which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 23:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 15 May 2024. The result of the move review was endorsed. |
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre ( talk) 20:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC) Edit: As per a request on my talk page, I'll share the reasoning for closing this the way I did:
“ | @ Gonzo fan2007: et al had the correct interpretation of MOS:SPORTSCAPS. The pre-Super Bowl championship games (and the conference championships, for that matter) are more often capitalised than not, especially as they're trademarked. Sceptre ( talk) 23:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC) | ” |
Thanks, Sceptre ( talk) 15:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
– Use sentence case since this is not a proper name – not nearly consistently capped in sources. Dicklyon ( talk) 17:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Some data: When these articles were created in 2005, they were full of over-capitalization (title, section headings, table headers), as was not unusual at that time (perhaps before we had a MOS:CAPS?). Some of that got fixed, but not the titles. The fully lowercase form was most common in books through 2004, but since then, many more sources have adopted the capitalized forms, probably influenced by Wikipedia, but they're still not close to "consistently capitalized" in sources. See n-gram stats for NFC and for AFC. Dicklyon ( talk) 17:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Specific competition titles and events (or series thereof) are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in independent sources. Note the difference between this wording and the
consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources(emphasis from source) wording quoted in the nomination.
...usually capitalizedseems to be a lower bar to clear than the nominator's rationale. Withholding my opinion for now to hear the discussion from my Wikipedia colleagues. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
— Bagumba ( talk) 03:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions.
is arbitrarily used to denote a particular person, place, or thing without regard to any descriptive meaning the word or phrase may have(per Collins dictionary). These are not proper names but descriptive names - a game played to determine the champion team of the league in a particular year. They clearly do not meet being necessary capitalisation per MOS:CAPS. While English may capitalise for emphasis or distinction, per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS, we don't do that. Per the ngram evidence game is only capped about half the time and very clearly, it is not consistently capped in sources. Furthermore, game is unnecessary precision and concision is preferred over unnecessary precision per WP:TITLEDAB. Per those that oppose, championship is arguably near the threshold for being capped (60% in this ngram and 67% in this ngram). Higher thresholds are used for ngram evidence since it does not exclude uses of title case such as titles in references and headings. Contexturalising the search by adding the will exclude many but not all of these instances. A true proper name is capitalised with near universal consistency (see ngram for London). When something is lowercase more than 40% of the time or more than one-third of the time, capitalisation is clearly not necessary per MOS:CAPS and, for a descriptive term, when it is being capitalised, it is for emphasis and distinction. The argument that these are proper nouns fails because they are descriptive. The evidence of usage is not sufficiently compelling to show that these are consistently capped in sources to warrant capitalisation here. When the question of capitalisation is unclear, our default per MOS:CAPS is to lowercase. Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
proper names are proper names, that is a circular argument. They are capped but proper names are not descriptive (per the Collins dictionary). WP:COMMONSENSE would clearly tell us these are descriptive names. Your ngram tells us that the present titles are only capped as such about half the time in sources and are clearly incorrectly capitalised. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
is arbitrarily used to denote a particular person, place, or thing without regard to any descriptive meaning the word or phrase may have. As I said, most people are either unaware of this (perhaps you missed where I quoted the dictionary previously). Brooklyn is a proper noun for the place of that name. [The] Brooklyn Bridge is a name/noun phrase, where Brooklyn is acting as an attributive noun (ie like an adjective) to modify the common noun bridge. I don't think anybody would try to argue that bridge is other than a common noun for a structure that spans a gap and or water? Semantically, it is not a true proper noun|name. For places and prominent "things", English (in prose) has come to follow the cartographic convention of applying sentence case to such names (ie including descriptive nouns). You can see from this ngram that it was not always capitalised with the near universal consistency it is today. Capitalisation is a matter of orthography. What is or isn't a proper noun is a matter of grammar/onomastics/linguistics. In English, capitalisation is often used for emphasis or distinction. Because of this, the two are not mutually inclusive. All languages have proper names - even those that are not written or lack an upper case. Most other European languages are much more rigorous in respect to capitalisation and tend to only capitalise proper names - unlike English. The translation in Italian is ponte di Brooklyn and the Italian sources do not capitalise ponte - indicating again, that while Brooklyn Bridge may be near universally capitalised in English, it is not a proper noun.
proper names are proper nameswill make it so. Cinderella157 ( talk) 22:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
The Philadelphia Eagles aren't actually birds, so their name doesn't describe their physical characteristics. That's what's meant by the phrasing on the Collins entry.Exactly Oknazevad, Philadelphia Eagles is an arbitrary name in that it is not descriptive. They do not fly. They do not have feathers. It is a proper noun. On the other hand X Championship Game is inherently descriptive. That is exactly what the Collins entry would distinguish as the difference between a proper noun and a common noun. Just because one assert that something is a proper noun because they would capitalise it does not make it so. Cinderella157 ( talk) 21:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
A proper name may appear to have a descriptive meaning, even though it does not ...Because of this simplistic classification based on the false equivalence between capitalisation and what is a proper noun, one will often see the use of capitalisation for emphasis or distinction being rationalised as being a proper noun. We see unsubstantiated assertions like,
Clear proper nounsand circular arguments like,
You know how one makes such a distinction? Capitalization of proper nouns- yet we do not capitalise for distinction per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
are unambiguously proper nouns?. MOS:PROPERNOUN tells us to capitalise proper nouns but it doesn't tell us what a proper noun is. It only links to proper noun. Proper nouns may sometimes take the definite article (the) but otherwise, they are not modified by articles or other determiners. Also, they are not normally pluralised but, if they are, they are not singularised. Consider:
Can I have a Coca-Cola? Do you have any Coka-Cola? Can I have two Coka-Colas?Ummm - not a proper name here. Similarly,
... Cortina (manufactured by the company Ford) as an example of a "tradename but not a proper name"(footnote f at proper noun, with a source). The same can be said of company names. You have made an assumption not evidenced. In answering, I have not accepted your premise and now give more detailed reasons.
is arbitrarily used to denote a particular person, place, or thing[empasis added]. How do you parse the meaning of arbitrarily in this definition? Is not an arbitrary name distinct from a descriptive name? What is your source to include an event or idea? Communism and justice are ideas but these are not treated as proper nouns. Proper nouns are not unique. There are many people called John Smith. Proper nouns|names are specific in a particular context. However, descriptive names can also be very specific and even unique, through modifiers and the use of the definite article (the). Proper nouns are recognised in speech but we do not hear capital letters. We even recognise proper nouns in the absence of capital letters - Latin script did not make a case distinction before about 1300 but we still had proper nouns without such distinction. Consider these two phrases as they would be used in prose:
the 1995 AFC Championship Gameand
the 1995 AFC championship game. They both specifically name and describe a particular event. Apart from capitalisation (an the implication that the first is a proper noun), what is the difference in meaning? How do we know to use one but not the other? Does the capitalised form tell us that this is a significant or important event?
the NFL championship games. Is this also "generic" because it is pluralised? We generally don't use the in article titles or pluralise a title. Why then, would we capitalise the title but not the subject of the title as used in prose - unless we use title case but Wiki uses sentence case for titles. Cinderella157 ( talk) 12:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)