Jump to content

Talk:Amazonian Craton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Amazonian craton)

Makes no sense

[edit]

It would seem from the diagrams that the Amazonian shield and the Guiana shield are the same. The description in the text seems to imply otherwise.Eregli bob (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

== Requested move ==
{{subst:requested move|Amazonian Shield|reason=Individual named shields and cratons are proper nouns, specific geographical entities and therefore it is appropriate to capitalise both the specific and generic elements of the article title - there is presently inconsistency within WP. Discussed recently (no dissent) at WikiProject geology (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology#Naming_of_individual_cratons_etc)}}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geopersona (talk • contribs) 04:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amazonian Craton. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 March 2025

[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of a consensus in favor of the proposed move. Evidence of use in extant sources is sufficient to show that the current title is not impermissible. I note the nominator's comment that these were previously moved to the current titles without discussion, but those moves were well over a decade ago, so stability of the current titles is not in question. BD2412 T 22:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– These terms have very mixed capitalization in sources, so per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS should not be treated as proper names in Wikipedia. That is, treat cratons like plates and terranes and such. Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 13:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: due to all these pages having been renamed to lc "craton", and due also to this RM having been reopened, this request has landed on the Malformed requests list. (All "current" listings are now redirects, and redirects are ineligible to be current titles in move requests.) There is also the fact that the RMCD bot has removed the RM notices from the articles. Editors should know that fixing the malformity would involve moving all these pages back to their previous titles, and editors should also know that if they decide to, at least temporarily, leave the titles as they are at this moment, the RMCD bot has listed this RM on the correct date of relisting, 6 April, as well. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 07:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth, I've reverted my last edit. Is that sufficient? TarnishedPathtalk 09:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To editor TarnishedPath: sorry, wish I could say yes, but no, because it removed this request from the April 6 list. You restored the close template, so the RMCD bot senses that this is a closed RM. Also, the notices should be replaced at the tops of all the above articles. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth, I've just replaced all the notices. TarnishedPathtalk 09:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, and your edit also restored this discussion to the 6 April list at WP:RM. Thank you for that also. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 12:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some data: Looking just at a few of the most common ones in book n-gram stats, it's clear that there is not consistent capitalization of "craton", i.e. that sources don't suggest we treat these as proper names. And if you look at the most common one, North American craton, it's overwhelmingly lowercase cration, but that's a redirect so is not part of this RM. Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support In reviewing this, I made an ngram search that identified the eight most commonly named cratons (here) to identify a sample for closer scrutiny. I then did ngram searches for each as follows: Dharwar craton, Kaapvaal craton, West Africn craton, North American craton, Slave craton, Archean craton and Superior craton. For the first two, I also reviewed google scholar results here and here. Per WP:NCCAPS, For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence. Therefore, if a name is not always capped in sources, it is not a proper name and should not be capped here. Lokking at the ngram results, three have a majority lowercase, two are near equal and three, while a majority uppercase are still a long way from being always capitalised. The google scholar results only confirm that there is mixed capitalisation. Based on this sample, there is no good reason why these titles should remain capped. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Brazil, WikiProject Geology, and WikiProject Brazil/Geography of Brazil task force have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 09:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Geology has been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 12:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Oppose (per comments below and...) because at least two of the nominated articles, the only ones I've checked, North China Craton and South China Craton, are predominantly uppercased in the n-grams. This may be a situation where too many articles were nommed at once. To focus on the two China pages, they seem to fit MOS:GEOCAPS, although I would ask editors from the geology projects if a craton is normally considered the name of a place and/or geographic feature. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems likely that the North China craton's higher level of capitalization in sources is because WP capped it from 2006, unlike the rest that were capped only from 2013. The timing of WP's influence on sources is very clear in the n-grams, esp. if smoothing is reduced to 0 or 1. But never mind that, as the n-grams do make it clear that neither ever was, or is now, consistently capitalized in sources, even if caps do reach 80% in a couple of years. It's hard for me to imagine why one would want a carve-out for these two. Dicklyon (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They are the only two I've checked, and wondered if you checked all of these before nominating them. If any others come close to 75-80 percent then I'd support leaving those uppercased as well. We can't go on guesswork or right-a-great-wrongisms and lowercase proper names by mixing them in with names which aren't capped. For me this comes down to: are cratons considered geographical features or just a group of arbitrarily drawn-lines. If arbitrarily drawn by committee they are then not really a geographic feature, unlike, for example, tectonic plates which have clear geographical boundaries, and thus would not pass the 'geofeature' section of MOS:GEOCAPS and should be lowercased (unless someone wants to argue the case for them being place names, which I cannot because I'm unfamiliar with the term). I hold out hope for a geographic or geology editor's opinion. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Craton is a class name and not inherently part of proper names, though we might capitalise it as if it were if this were always done per NCCAPS. I have now had a brief look at all the articles. This is not a particularly common term and it is also a "specialist" term, subject to WP:SSF and capitalised as a term of art - but we don't do that per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. Specificity is not a defining property of proper names since specificity can be achieved by using the definite article (the) and modifiers. Looking at these as a group, several don't have ngrams, most appear to have a relatively small ngram sample set and there is significant fluctuation (noise). The ngrams presented are for the raw search term and do not exclude expected title case uses, such as headings and titles of citations. An allowance, often stated at 10%, needs to be made for such uses when considering ngrams and generally, results should be confirmed against google scholar and/or google books. I have looked at the south and north China cratons reasonably closely. The raw ngram data for the most recent year is 80% and 77% respectively. I also see in sources that the term is often given as an initialism. Since it is a style to capitalise an expanded term to introduce an initialism, such uses do not reasonably indicate necessary capitalisation since that is not our style per MOS:EXPABBR. Having looked at all of the titles, I only see one for which there might be an argument for capitalisation. However, the evidence across these articles indicates that it is not necessary to cap the class noun craton when used with a location name that is a proper name. Capitalisation on WP is essentially a statistical question and I would consider that article to be a statistical outlier and not treated as an exception from the group. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TarnishedPath, Dicklyon's misdirection is likely meant for you and not for me, as he and I have had this discussion before. Dick likes closers and editors to disregard percentages (and 80% uppercased is an uppercased proper name) by saying it's Wikipedia's fault that it's a proper name. How the proper name came to be is not our concern, just that it's a proper name now, in present time. You don't downcase something just because Wikipedia uppercases it, which is what Dick says above. There is no policy, guideline, or essay which says that we go the opposite way because of a guess. The entire RM is arguably broken because some of the nominated articles were wrongly nominated (I haven't checked further than the two listed above) and were then caught in a close (like catching mermaids in a fish net). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn, I've re-opened and relisted the discussion. I've also notified Wikiproject geology again (I'd done so previously). TarnishedPathtalk 12:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As I mentioned, would be nice to have a geology editor commenting as I'm not sure what the craton status is considered within the field. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Vsmith, as they were involved in a number of these moves and may have valuable insight. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The boundaries of cratons are not just "arbitrary lines drawn by committees" - they are collision zones between former tectonic plates (see Suture (geology), and can be directly geologically mapped where there are surface exposures, or through drilling, or, where the boundaries have been obscured through cycles of uplift, erosion, and subsequent sedimentary cover, inferred through gravity surveys. Over long periods of geological time these boundaries remain zones of crustal weakness, where seismic activity may continue along imbricate fault, décollement and shear zones, which can also be mapped. So although cratonic boundaries may not all have been comprehensively mapped at the present time, the cratons themselves are distinct remnants of ancient continental crust. Although it's not completely synonymous, see also the related term Shield (geology), where the names of individual shields are capitalised. Bahudhara (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is essentially an argument that because something has a specific referent, it is a proper name but ignores that a specific referrant is not a defining property of a proper name (per my above) and that proper names are not descriptive per here. A WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments only have substance if the other content is directly related and correctly capitalised yet Uruguayan Shield only yeilds a lowercase ngram result here, Arabian-Nubian Shield is far from always capitalised here, as is Tuareg Shield here. These results indicate that the capitalisation of shield in this grpoup of articles should also be reviewed. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support'—We don't cap the "s" in "Washington state". Why "Craton", then? Also per Cinderella. Tony (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The state's name is Washington, not Washington State (that's probably a college?), and 'state' is used to differentiate it from Washington, D.C. A craton is a geographical feature (see the explanation above). thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amazonian_Craton&oldid=1287086948"