Talk:Steppe Geoglyphs

Geoglyphs/geoglyphs[change source]

Don't most of the sources capitalize Geoglyphs? What I looked at does. "Canyon" is a normal word, but we capitalize "Grand Canyon." It is my understanding that Wik/se follows most-common usage (with exceptions) rather than trying to impose our rules. I suggest the Steppe geoglypsh article be moved back to Steppe Geoglyphs. Kdammers (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geoglyph(s) is not a proper noun. Neither is steppe. Grand Canyon is the name of a particular place, and is a proper noun. Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mac, you are correct in general, but this article is about a specific place: "Steppe Geoglyphs" is the name of a specific formation just like "Grand Canyon" is. The article title, and the first mention of it in the article, should be capitalized. The other mention of "geoglyphs" should remain in lower case.

But Grand Canyon is an official name of a place. Steppe geoglyphs is not. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems official enough to call for upper case. Several of the sources used by the enwiki article give it in upper case (for example, this one), as does the enwiki article itself. (I'm not counting the sources that give it in upper case only where title case is being used.) Plus, this article is not about geoglyphs that appear in steppes in general, it is about specific ones. If it is left in lower case, it would need to be more specific, maybe by giving a location. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kdammers: it would be helpful if you would format the references instead of leaving them as bare URLs. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geoglyphs is a general term for strange shaped earthworks probably made by prehistoric humans. They are found in many places. The steppes of Asia cover an enormous region. The title has two words, both very general. The government of Kazakhstan will no doubt decide on a formal name, and when they do we can copy it. Until then, why not leave well alone. Incidentally, the En wiki page was put up on 30th October, so it's hardly been read by other editors. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should move back to the original, cap version (that I wrote). As I mentioned before, "Grand Canyon" is composed of two even more common and general words (as is "Great Lakes"), but the words have been combined to become a proper name (probably long before any official designation) and are appropriately in caps. I don't see any difference in the case of these geoglyphs. But maybe more importantly, Wikipedia generally follows "standard" (admittedly a slippery term and concept) usage. This generally means what is in use by the educated public, in reality the mainstream media. Looking at that, we see both the Times of India (timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Steppe-Geoglyphs) and the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/science/nasa-adds-to-evidence-of-mysterious-ancient-earthworks.html?_r=0 [though its significant source, http://e-history.kz/en/contents/view/1562, apparently doesn't use the term, caps or not, at all.]) using caps. In addition, the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steppe-geoglyphs-nasa-space_5630e7bce4b0c66bae5a50b8) uses caps. In a short search of Google Scholar, I could find no use of the term in either form in the scientific literature online. I agree that the English Wikipedia article per se should not be used since it is in fact a copy of the simple English article with some additions and revisions. --Kdammers (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The websites are not authorities. They are just journalists writing copy. All governments of major countries have committees and even organisations set up to work on World Heritage sites. In England, the United Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO advises the British government, which is responsible for maintaining its World Heritage Sites, on policies regarding UNESCO. Kazakhstan will have some equivalent. They will decide how to phrase it. All I am saying is wait until we have a genuine source. Meanwhile, lower case is the default for all common nouns in English. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Is The New York Times authoritative enough? I think the fact that several sources plus the enwiki article use upper case (and I don't see any using this term that have it in lower case) is good enough for this wiki. This does not say anything about being a World Heritage Site, so I don't see what that has to do with it. The title in lower case would mean an article about any and all geoglyphs in the steppe, whereas this article is about specific ones. I'm going to undo the move. If you want to pursue it, we can have a general discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having a general name for a specific thing is never a good idea. Newspapers are not reliable sources for everything. Discussion moved her, which is where it belongs. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]