![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
biased and full of extraeneous info to do with parking and toilet facilities. Wants substantial re-write to make it encyclopaedic. raining_girl 21:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know the meaning of "Ku-ring-gai"? I'm assuming it has meaning in an Aboriginal language. Trcunning 18:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Referring to the new additions and reverts of 20 July 2020. here I suggest there is some good in it that we should use, but it seemed easier to just revert and start again. Henni1978, thank you for your suggestions, and based on the below comments, perhaps you can provided a revised new addition to the article and others (me?) can modify if required. Also pinging Laterthanyouthink
Below I've expanded on a few comments from my edit summaries with suggested ways forward. It's the wikipedia way to bat things back and forward to a new refined consensus version. I refer to the "Existing" as pre-Henni's edit, and the new proposed word's as "Henni's".
Comments and some suggestions:
Let's see what we can all do. :) -- Merbabu ( talk) 00:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
As illustrated in Native title in Australia § Traditional owner, "traditional owners" is not a proper noun - the term alone does not denote a specific person or persons. It is a common noun, referring to a class of people, and thus sentence case is used per MOS:CAPS. Mitch Ames ( talk) 06:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Preferences for capitals when the terms ‘traditional owner’ ... are used as titles— In this context - "the Traditional Owners of the area" - "traditional owners" is not a title, as is evident by the use of the article (grammar) before term. See also the relevant (ie Wikipedia's) style guide: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Titles of people. In this context "traditional owners" is generic use - it is not "juxtaposed with [a] person's name".
Initial caps are seen as a mark of respect— MOS does not say to capitalise as a mark of respect, it says to capitalise proper names. (A proper name/noun isn't just "something we think is important or deserves respect", it has a specific well defined grammatical meaning, as explained in the linked article.) In fact MOS:SIGNIFCAPS says "Initial capitals ... should not be used ... for signification, i.e. to try to impress upon the reader the importance or specialness of something".
some of the guides recommend initial capitals— MOS requires more than "some of the guides"; it requires "consistently ... in a substantial majority of ... sources".
2 quick things: I should have added "among Indigenous Australians" after "mark of respect". If you google "traditional owners", the majority of the first page or two of hits do actually use initial caps. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 13:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
MOS:CAPS says nothing about capitalisation as mark of respect. ... Founding Fathers of the United States." — MOS:CAPS does say (with my emphasis) "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources" - the use of "only" excludes everything else, including "respect". (Speaking as an Australian...) My understanding is that "Founding Fathers" is consistently capitalised and is considered a proper noun. "Traditional owners" is not consistently capitalised, and is not a proper noun. Mitch Ames ( talk) 11:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Parallel discussion at WT:MOSCAPS#Traditional owners. Mitch Ames ( talk) 01:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Guringai Traditional Owners and Garigal are both proper nouns— " Guringai" and " Garigal" are undeniably proper nouns; "traditional owner(s)" is not.
... a lot of sources ...is not the same as " consistently ... in a substantial majority of ... sources".
First Nations people themselves need to be involved in the discussion and decision making— All people, of all nations, are welcome to discuss Wikipedia's policies, including Wikipedia's style guide, and contribute to the consensus that determines how Wikipedia capitalises words. Mitch Ames ( talk) 07:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
References
MOS:BOLD says (with my emphasis here) "Boldface ... is considered appropriate only for certain usages", and the relevant text in this article does not meet any of the usages listed.
If you want them to be headings, make them headings (but move the links - MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS; use {{ main}} if necessary). Alternatively format them using MOS:DEFLIST. Personally I do not think either is necessary or appropriate, but I won't object if you think it's worth doing.
Mitch Ames ( talk) 05:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The MOS does not say that the items listed there are the "certain usages"— So what are the "certain usages"? Please quote the relevant text from MOS, in particular the part that applies in this case. It seems unlikely that MOS would say "only for certain usages" and then not actually tell us what the "certain usages" are.
It also does not rule those uses out.— I suggest that the word "only" does exclude the usages not explicitly listed. Mitch Ames ( talk) 07:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
you rely too much on words such as ... "suggest".— I'm trying to be polite. What I meant of course is "I'm right and you're wrong", but that does not lend itself to civil discussion.
it does not say, for example, "it must only before theses following uses"— Yes it does:
Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases:" followed by a bullet list of those special cases that does not include the disputed usage in this article.
Avoid various kinds of overemphasis, which distracts from the writing: ... Bold type is reserved for certain uses." Those usages are listed explicitly (in the linked section Boldface) as " Article title terms", "Automatically applied boldface" (which obviously does not apply here), "Other uses" (none of which cover the disputed usage in this article).
my bolding was an improvement— ... in your opinion, but not mine. It does not align with the consensus of editors as reflected by MOS - which exists to " maintain articles with ... consistent ... formatting" independently of your and my personal opinions as to what is "better". Mitch Ames ( talk) 01:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
biased and full of extraeneous info to do with parking and toilet facilities. Wants substantial re-write to make it encyclopaedic. raining_girl 21:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know the meaning of "Ku-ring-gai"? I'm assuming it has meaning in an Aboriginal language. Trcunning 18:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Referring to the new additions and reverts of 20 July 2020. here I suggest there is some good in it that we should use, but it seemed easier to just revert and start again. Henni1978, thank you for your suggestions, and based on the below comments, perhaps you can provided a revised new addition to the article and others (me?) can modify if required. Also pinging Laterthanyouthink
Below I've expanded on a few comments from my edit summaries with suggested ways forward. It's the wikipedia way to bat things back and forward to a new refined consensus version. I refer to the "Existing" as pre-Henni's edit, and the new proposed word's as "Henni's".
Comments and some suggestions:
Let's see what we can all do. :) -- Merbabu ( talk) 00:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
As illustrated in Native title in Australia § Traditional owner, "traditional owners" is not a proper noun - the term alone does not denote a specific person or persons. It is a common noun, referring to a class of people, and thus sentence case is used per MOS:CAPS. Mitch Ames ( talk) 06:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Preferences for capitals when the terms ‘traditional owner’ ... are used as titles— In this context - "the Traditional Owners of the area" - "traditional owners" is not a title, as is evident by the use of the article (grammar) before term. See also the relevant (ie Wikipedia's) style guide: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Titles of people. In this context "traditional owners" is generic use - it is not "juxtaposed with [a] person's name".
Initial caps are seen as a mark of respect— MOS does not say to capitalise as a mark of respect, it says to capitalise proper names. (A proper name/noun isn't just "something we think is important or deserves respect", it has a specific well defined grammatical meaning, as explained in the linked article.) In fact MOS:SIGNIFCAPS says "Initial capitals ... should not be used ... for signification, i.e. to try to impress upon the reader the importance or specialness of something".
some of the guides recommend initial capitals— MOS requires more than "some of the guides"; it requires "consistently ... in a substantial majority of ... sources".
2 quick things: I should have added "among Indigenous Australians" after "mark of respect". If you google "traditional owners", the majority of the first page or two of hits do actually use initial caps. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 13:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
MOS:CAPS says nothing about capitalisation as mark of respect. ... Founding Fathers of the United States." — MOS:CAPS does say (with my emphasis) "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources" - the use of "only" excludes everything else, including "respect". (Speaking as an Australian...) My understanding is that "Founding Fathers" is consistently capitalised and is considered a proper noun. "Traditional owners" is not consistently capitalised, and is not a proper noun. Mitch Ames ( talk) 11:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Parallel discussion at WT:MOSCAPS#Traditional owners. Mitch Ames ( talk) 01:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Guringai Traditional Owners and Garigal are both proper nouns— " Guringai" and " Garigal" are undeniably proper nouns; "traditional owner(s)" is not.
... a lot of sources ...is not the same as " consistently ... in a substantial majority of ... sources".
First Nations people themselves need to be involved in the discussion and decision making— All people, of all nations, are welcome to discuss Wikipedia's policies, including Wikipedia's style guide, and contribute to the consensus that determines how Wikipedia capitalises words. Mitch Ames ( talk) 07:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
References
MOS:BOLD says (with my emphasis here) "Boldface ... is considered appropriate only for certain usages", and the relevant text in this article does not meet any of the usages listed.
If you want them to be headings, make them headings (but move the links - MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS; use {{ main}} if necessary). Alternatively format them using MOS:DEFLIST. Personally I do not think either is necessary or appropriate, but I won't object if you think it's worth doing.
Mitch Ames ( talk) 05:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The MOS does not say that the items listed there are the "certain usages"— So what are the "certain usages"? Please quote the relevant text from MOS, in particular the part that applies in this case. It seems unlikely that MOS would say "only for certain usages" and then not actually tell us what the "certain usages" are.
It also does not rule those uses out.— I suggest that the word "only" does exclude the usages not explicitly listed. Mitch Ames ( talk) 07:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
you rely too much on words such as ... "suggest".— I'm trying to be polite. What I meant of course is "I'm right and you're wrong", but that does not lend itself to civil discussion.
it does not say, for example, "it must only before theses following uses"— Yes it does:
Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases:" followed by a bullet list of those special cases that does not include the disputed usage in this article.
Avoid various kinds of overemphasis, which distracts from the writing: ... Bold type is reserved for certain uses." Those usages are listed explicitly (in the linked section Boldface) as " Article title terms", "Automatically applied boldface" (which obviously does not apply here), "Other uses" (none of which cover the disputed usage in this article).
my bolding was an improvement— ... in your opinion, but not mine. It does not align with the consensus of editors as reflected by MOS - which exists to " maintain articles with ... consistent ... formatting" independently of your and my personal opinions as to what is "better". Mitch Ames ( talk) 01:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)