Talk:puli

Deletion debate
Belongs at Puli, where I moved it, but apparently moving is called deleting these days. Look at akc.org or any serious reputable source in English dedicated to dogs, including the various breed clubs, and they almost invariably list dog breed names in all caps. — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 23:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well really moving is deleting one thing and adding another, so it does require an RFD. Delete. --Yair rand 23:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ...moving is moving. you see in the buttons how "move" is next to "delete"? — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 00:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Move to Puli, keep puli as an alternative capitalization (there are many Google Books hits) and replace the picture of the mop with that of a dog. --Vahagn Petrosyan 00:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we have a picture of a Puli doing exercise that makes it look like a flying mop — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 00:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Moving ≠ deletion. The OED lists it with an initial minuscule, without listing the capitalised form as an alternative; however, all its citations of and  are majuscule-initial, except for those that appear as the synonymous phrase . In re the plurals, the OED (September 2009 draft revision) lists undefined: before undefined:, whereas the second edition (1989) lists only undefined:. Keep undefined: as an alternative spelling of undefined: and change the picture to the flying mop FOR THE WIN. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As good as their corpus may be, "pulis" outnumbers "pulik" 422/301 on Google news and 613/235 on books. I didn't compare upper and lower case, nor UK and US sources. DCDuring TALK 17:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I must have seen the flying mop somewhere else - this is the only Puli in action I can find on commons... it might have been the similar-looking Komondor I was thinking of...well maybe not, because now this is the most active Komondor. Must have been somewhere else on the net. — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 00:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I know of no reason to give special weight to "reputable" sources. We don't give much credence to international standard-setting bodies, let alone industry trade associations cum clubs such as the AKC. This is the most common form of the word except in the specialized contexts of dog shows and dog-breed promotion. The quote provided is an example. The same thing applies to virtually every dog (or cat) breed common enough to be mentioned in newspapers and normal writings (eg, fiction). I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing applied to other kinds of pets. Perhaps the capitalized forms could be given a context tag of some kind. DCDuring TALK 00:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "We don't give much credence to international standard-setting bodies" Funny, that's the opposite of one of the arguments that kept coming up in the Serbo-Croatian Fiasco. — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 00:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I was thinking, except my focus was on what happened in practice. But, more recently and relevantly, also consider the vote on international standard weights and measures terminology. DCDuring TALK 16:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or RFV, where I expect it would pass easily. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per DCDuring, et al. &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 16:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep given this capitalization is attestable per CFI. A relevant searches:, . --Dan Polansky 17:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to stick my oar in quite firmly here and remind everyone that we only use CAPITALS for PROPER NOUNS. None of these are proper nouns. Birds, for instance, are always referred to in the literature with capitals, because birders are like that. Animal lovers are like that too. It sort of adds importance to their favourite subject. But we had this discussion before when talking about birds (I will try to find it). The consensus then was that these names are not proper nouns. Calling a Crested Tit in capitals is not correct. If it were, then we would have to have Tit, Blackbird, Sparrow, Reed Warbler, etc etc. The only capitalization that should be allowed is where we have a proper name, such as Bewick's swan, or Sir David's long-beaked echidna. Otherwise, where do we draw the line? Elephant, Giraffe? If these, then why not all words? No! Capitalisation is for proper nouns only. -- A LGRIF  talk 10:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We have the same problem with grape/wine varieties. What we normally do there is to have the definition at one, and an "alternative capitalization" entry at the other. Very often the capitalized version is prime, because it is often a place name as well. See shiraz: as an example. SemperBlotto 10:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine that the matter hinges on whether it should be capitalized if it is a proper noun. It looks as if the frequency of capitalization varies by context. Nor should our entry depend on our attitude toward the motive for capitalization by those who do so. As we have chosen to keep track of alternative orthographies, we need to be reasonably consistent in doing so. We could make a policy decision that we treat English breed names the same as we treat English vernacular species names, but we haven't done so. In the absence of the policy decision (and vote?) we are stuck with the facts, which show that in ordinary discourse the terms are usually lower case. In contexts involving the dog-breed industry (including reporting of dog shows) the upper case form prevails. In the case of rare breeds we may not find much usage outside of the dog-breed industry context. DCDuring TALK 12:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I must disagree most strongly. Capitalisation on Wikt has always been about proper nouns. It has NEVER been about whether Google has more capitalised than non capitalised finds. Our search box does the rest if someone enters a capitalised word. No extra entry is needed. If there is also a proper noun entry, as SB mentions, then a link needs to be made. But that's all. -- A LGRIF  talk 14:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It certainly isn't the definition of Proper noun. EP has discussed this point often enough. If I use the adverb or plural noun "Februarys" I am not using a proper noun. DCDuring TALK 15:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore; when making a new entry, have you never seen the following? WARNING! The title you are using may be wrong. Remember that Wiktionary is case-sensitive. You probably want to edit the lowercase version of your word: If you are entering a word that is always capitalized, like "German" or "Marxist", please proceed. Please also see proper noun. -- A LGRIF  talk 14:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's just a way of getting people to think twice. If it were are simple as you say we could do more entry automation. DCDuring TALK 15:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel that we don't accept capitalized words when they are also used without the capital to refer to the same thing, and the addition of the capital only results from a general rule (e.g. at the beginning of a sentence, or to make clear that you refer to some generic species, etc.). Some nouns are capitalized even when they are not proper nouns (e.g. French demonyms, Egyptologist...) Lmaltier 14:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In most comparable questions we seem to insist on lexicalizing essentially grammatical distinctions. A fortiori, in this case, it seems to me to be not so much grammatical as context-dependent, which would certainly warrant distinct entries. Which should be primary I don't know. And we could make a policy decision about this, one way or the other. And about pet breeds generally, vernacular animal and plant names, plant varieties, and whatever else seemed homogeneous enough on a priori or prescriptive grounds. DCDuring TALK 15:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply at BP Capitals for pets


 * It might save a lot of time discussing to get the archived discussions on this capitalization issue from the Wikipedians. It crops up there from time to time as an issue.  The short of what I know from those discussions is: (1) There is an "official" list of common English names of birds with a standard saying such names should be capitalized (on each part of the name, and not just the first initial).  (2) For plants, there is no single standard, and names may have the first letter of each part of the common name capitalized, or no part capitalized, or only the parts that come from a proper noun capitalized, etc.


 * The confounding problems in all this is that (a) English permits capitalization of any word that a writer wishes to emphasize, and (b) birding (etc) first became popular during the Eighteenth Century when Capitalization of English words sometimes followed Rules and Norms quite different from Modern Practice.


 * ...and to reply to one thread above, indeed, capitalization on Wiktionary is not about proper nouns. There are some English proper nouns that are not capitalized (e.g. zodiac), and many words in many situations are capitalized without being proper nouns (e.g. DVD, Buddhist, Greek fire), as well as some words that are always capitalized that are both a proper and a common noun depending on context (e.g. Albanian), or can be a common noun when not capitalized and a specific instance proper noun either when capitalized or not (e.g. Sun/sun, Earth/earth).  --EncycloPetey 16:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Kept. IMO should never have been nominated. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)