User talk:Theknightwho/2021

__ARCHIVEDTALK__

act of parliament
I reverted this move because that is obviously false. It is only capitalized in certain contexts, as the en.wp article clearly shows in its text. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 23:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It is not "obviously false". The proper use of the term is always capitalised, as is so by the official bodies that actually pass them, and the WP article has a lengthy discussion about this very point on the talk page. Theknightwho (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Yet the text in the article clearly does not capitalize it every single time. There is also a past WT:RFC conversation about having it uncapitalized here. This is not an uncontroversial move by any stretch of the imagination and should never have been carried out without first achieving consensus. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 23:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You can't use WP to be prescriptive, especially not when there was no actual consensus on WP to use it that way, and it's something that appears to have just arisen over time. If you want sources for capitalisation, try Erskine May, the Parliament of Australia, the Government of Canada and the Parliamentary Counsel Office of New Zealand all using it capitalised. Theknightwho (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not using WP to be prescriptive, I'm using it to be descriptive. The main reason your move even caught my attention in the first place is because it smacked of prescriptivism ("the term is properly capitalized", as the summary said). Your comment now too tries to argue from a prescriptivist standpoint. Wiktionary is not prescriptive, but descriptive; we follow real-life usage instead of decreeing how things should be. The current wording of act of parliament does not even specify that it exclusively applies to Commonwealth countries. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 23:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the term is "properly capitalised" because it is used in a capitalised way in official sources. The term "properly capitalised" refers to how it should be written on Wiktionary, based on actual usage, which is a wholly descriptivist argument. You, on the other hand, are being prescriptivist by trying to use WP as a source. How many sources do you want? Here's one from India, and another from Pakistan... This doesn't feel like a point that you would conceivably concede on given enough evidence. Theknightwho (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In any event, the current layout suggests that capitalisation is not a valid form of use at all, which is clearly incorrect. Theknightwho (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "it is used in a capitalised way in official sources" is, again, prescriptivism, not descriptivism. I already clearly stated I'm not trying to argue this from a prescriptivist standpoint, because Wiktionary is not prescriptive. No, the current layout does not suggest that capitalization is invalid. English sentences tend to have the first word capitalized, but that is not a justification for having a "capitalized form" entry for basically every word. Likewise, book titles tend to capitalize most words. The case of Act of Parliament is not too far removed from either of these; they are honorific capitals. The community consensus, at least for this particular entry, is to not capitalize it. Thus, you shouldn't be here to convince me that the move was correct, but convince the community over at the Tea Room or a similar discussion venue. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 11:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The statement that it is used that way in official sources is the precise opposite of prescriptivism. It is describing actual usage. I am genuinely at a loss as to how you could think it's prescribing anything, bar how Wiktionary should be presenting it. You seem to be arguing with a point of view that I simply do not hold.
 * The current layout does not suggest that it is commonly used in a way that is non-standard for English nouns. Saying it is "not too far removed" from a book title would be tantamount to saying that it is a proper noun, which we would both agree should be capitalised. Except it is not a proper noun. It is just an unusual ordinary noun that happens to be used in a capitalised way in the middle of sentences, which is something that you would have noticed had you bothered to actually look at the sources that I provided. I don't see how you could possibly infer that that would imply we would need a page for every capitalised form.
 * There is no community consensus whatsoever. Citing what amounted to a statement that the page would use non-capitalisation and a Wikipedia discussion that did not generate any consensus view is inadequate for establishing that.
 * Theknightwho (talk) 11:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources you linked are not describing actual usage, but official sites using the term the way they are. It very much comes across to me as prescriptivism that you're arguing based only on those official sources, i.e. "the official sources capitalize it, so it must properly be capitalized, and not capitalizing it would be wrong". That is prescriptivism. In contrast, the only cite the entry in question currently has as well as the Wikipedia article I initially mentioned does not capitalize the term consistently and thus very much leads one to believe that it is not always, not necessarily even predominantly, capitalized. As for the community consensus, there definitely is here at en.wikt; as I said, there was an RFC and the decision was made to move the page under the uncapitalized title. Granted, it was a long time ago and only involved two people, but that still counts as the consensus.
 * Seeing as a separate entry exists for (as well as the uncapitalized ), what I see would the best solution in this case is to have a separate entry for the capitalized form and either make it an  or write an appropriate definition. The uncapitalized form is definitely attested and shouldn't be removed or turned into an unceremonious redirect due to it being somehow wrong just on the basis that the official sources of some governments choose to capitalize it in their documents and on their websites. &mdash; S URJECTION  / T / C / L / 12:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Alternative case form of is fine. I would suggest:
 * Acceptable to you?
 * Theknightwho (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure (although I don't think the |id=formal has much of an effect). &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 13:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it gets at the honorific point you made earlier, and although I don't have the time to look into it, I wonder if the difference is also to do with the parliament/Parliament distinction, where "Parliament" is used as a proper noun. Theknightwho (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the id parameter given to . The id= parameter in link (including alt form) templates is intended to link to a specific sense ID in the target entry. Since does not have a sense ID named "formal" (it has only one sense either way so there would not be too much point in this case), it simply won't have any effect. The label  is fine. &mdash; S URJECTION  / T / C / L / 13:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That was an error. I had intended to remove it after adding the lb template. Theknightwho (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That was an error. I had intended to remove it after adding the lb template. Theknightwho (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)