Jump to content

Talk:Seattle General Strike

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Ok, I expanded the page after planning on doing so for quite some time. My only worry is the quotes: I have a mix of italics and quotation marks and I can't decide which one looks better or is more proper. --Tothebarricades 02:50, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

The controls themselves

[edit]

Other than in the introduction, there seems to be nothing about the wage controls themselves. It's a big hole in the article. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 March 2015

[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: No consensus to move after a month of discussion. Cúchullain t/c 12:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Seattle General StrikeSeattle general strike – Most better sources (e.g. books) don't capitalize this. Per MOS:CAPS, we don't capitalize where unnecessary. Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[edit]

Sources as summarized by Google n-grams (also these n-grams) are mostly lower case. Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase in which caps often occur, as shown by the n-grams link, "of the Seattle General Strike", is often due to mentions of the "History Committee of the Seattle General Strike Committee"; these counts don't suggest capitalization in general. Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Survey and Discussion

[edit]
B2C, there must be a basic misunderstanding here for you to respond like that. There's not much point in considering proportions of upcased vs downcased initials if a good proportion of the sample includes text that uses generic title case by default, no matter what. The practice is clear only by considering case in the main text, not titles and subtitles. Tony (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Please explain. Why would we not use title case in our, you know, titles? Especially if all other reliable source articles on this topic use this name in title case in their titles? --В²C 16:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TITLEFORMAT. "Titles are written in sentence case. ... Words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text." ╠╣uw [talk] 19:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see the ink is barely dry on that insanity[4]. Let's use sentence case, not title case, for our frickin' TITLES? Are you kidding me??? Okay, I understand for topics in which reliable sources also don't use title case in their titles of articles about the same subject - but when standard usage in reliable sources for titles of articles about the given subject is to use title case, so should we. Of course. We should not be ignoring reliable source usage in titles when deciding how to title our articles. --В²C 21:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
B2C, we always use sentence case in article titles, and have been for like over a decade, I think ever since we switched away from CamelCase. Why, I don't know, but that is what we do. Titles in Wikipedia are lowercase except for proper nouns, etc, etc: that is what "sentence case" means. The ink isn't wet on this, we've been doing this for like over a decade. That change you link is not a material change to TITLEFORMAT, it is merely a redundant rephrasing of the text immediately prior. The point here being that when we pick the case to use for our titles we do not chose the case that other works use for their titles, we choose the case they use for running text, i.e. what they think is correct for sentence case. For this subject, that appears to be lowercase ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through this thread I'm finding it difficult to take B2C's comments seriously. Gathering evidence requries clear, open techniques with clear, open purposes. These have all been explained, but they're met with sarcasm and disbelief. Please be reasonable. Tony (talk) 07:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – the evidence seems pretty straightforward; this phrase isn't usually capitalized in sources, so generally we wouldn't, either. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, based on the data and, more importantly, the trend since 1970 of ancient 2008 ngrams (my granddad told me of those, they were once reliable but the years, alas, have taken their toll), from the sources listed on the page (External sources, etc.), and from search engine searches which show the upper-case to be well within the mainstream and recognized as a proper name, the upper-case use on Wikipedia remains proper and within the guidelines. Besides, even while the strike was going on, the people organizing it worked from a 'General Strike committee', so sources were already capitalizing it even as it was occurring. And I've asked this many times without an answer - why did ngrams stop in 2008??? Thanks. Randy Kryn 10:56 20 March, 2015 (UTC)
    I think the point Randy's making about ngrams is that while lowercase is more common in books prior to 2008, the fact that we have no idea if that continued, went up, down, or what in the last 6–7 years means we should completely ignore the 95 years of books before that. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. The point I was making was that since 1970 the subject is capitalized in ngrams, and then they stop in 2008. Randy Kryn 18:54 20 March, 2015 (UTC)
    The main trouble with n-grams is not that they stop around the time that wikipedia starts influencing usage in books, but rather that they count uses in titles, headings, citations, and such that are in title case, and don't help much to distinguish that from what we need to know, which is usage in sentence context. Your search in particular is designed to pick up all titles, headings, and citations, while if you include lowercase "the" in front you pick up mostly things in sentence context, and it becomes much more clear that lowercase still dominates 2:1. Dicklyon (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please fix vandalism from February 4th

[edit]

I tried to revert vandalism from 4th and 5th February edits but it won't let me for some reason (some Wikipelli thing reverts my edit). The start of the article should say "an unsuccessful" and not "a successful". Someone please fix this. 77.222.27.61 (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what in the article can we determine that the strike was successful (or unsuccessful)? —C.Fred (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says in the article that the result was arrests of workers and start of Red Scare. Original article says "unsuccessful", someone vandalized a few days ago. 77.222.27.61 (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]