Talk:Purépecha Empire/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Tarascan State
Actually it is not a proper name, so I think you should move it back.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Maunus: If it is not, then what is the name of the state in English? Maybe Tarascan Empire, like Inca Empire, Aztec Empire? If "state" is not part of the name, it should be "Tarascan (state)" - but I doubt that "Tarascan" is a noun and not an adjective. Eldizzino (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- It's kind of an ad hoc term, there is no established proper name for the political unit "Iréchecua Tzintzuntzáni" in English. It was not an empire so that is not possible. The few sources about it does use the description "Tarascan state", but I don't think I would consider it a proper noun in the sense of being the name of the Tarascan state.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Pollard, the main expert, doesnt capitalize it: [1][2]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Maunus: An expert for the state or for capitalization rules for geographical names? Does ad-hoc-ness matter for capitalization? Eldizzino (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- An expert in the Tarascan state. And yes ad hoc-ness matters for capitalization because proper names are by definition not ad hoc. If published texts on the state do ont capitalize then there is on reason why we should.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Maunus: So, Pollard is out. Have you ever heard of the Chicago Manual of Style? Have you ever read the sections relevant for capitalization of geographical names? Look around in Wikipedia, the CMoS rules are used for almost all geographical objects, no matter how ad-hoc a name is. Eldizzino (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- No Pollard is not out. Pollard is the main authority we follow. Also on the capitalization. If the editor's of her books an article do not capitalize then neither do we. And please ditch the condescenscion. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style does not say that Pollard should be followed. And If the editor's of her books an article do not capitalize then neither do we. makes not sense - the state is not a book. Eldizzino (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- As for the Chicago Manual it says "Under 7.40 in the 14th edition, words such as “city” and “state” “are capitalized when they are used as an accepted part of the proper name.” and it says "Governmental entities: Where the government rather than the place is meant, the words state, city, and the like are usually capitalized." ."Tarascan state" is not a proper name (in the same way that Denmark is a proper name and "the Danish state" is not) and it refers to the place not the government and hence is not capitalized in full accordance with Chicago style.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- If what you claim would be true and "Tarascan state" is not a proper name - why is the content not located under a proper name for that entity? There is no content for the link "Danish state" but a whole article is located at Denmark? Could it be that this article is the only one in Wikipedia about a territorial entity that is not located under the proper name for that entity? Happy to see more examples. Eldizzino (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- No Pollard is not out. Pollard is the main authority we follow. Also on the capitalization. If the editor's of her books an article do not capitalize then neither do we. And please ditch the condescenscion. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Maunus: So, Pollard is out. Have you ever heard of the Chicago Manual of Style? Have you ever read the sections relevant for capitalization of geographical names? Look around in Wikipedia, the CMoS rules are used for almost all geographical objects, no matter how ad-hoc a name is. Eldizzino (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- An expert in the Tarascan state. And yes ad hoc-ness matters for capitalization because proper names are by definition not ad hoc. If published texts on the state do ont capitalize then there is on reason why we should.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Maunus: An expert for the state or for capitalization rules for geographical names? Does ad-hoc-ness matter for capitalization? Eldizzino (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Pollard, the main expert, doesnt capitalize it: [1][2]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- It's kind of an ad hoc term, there is no established proper name for the political unit "Iréchecua Tzintzuntzáni" in English. It was not an empire so that is not possible. The few sources about it does use the description "Tarascan state", but I don't think I would consider it a proper noun in the sense of being the name of the Tarascan state.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Now, looking at your sources
- http://www.jstor.org/stable/280141?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents says "Central Places and Cities: A Consideration of the Protohistoric Tarascan State" - I think the last S is a capital S, right? Eldizzino (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- Have you ever heard about title case? Wikipedia doesnt use it but the journal American Antiquity does, as you can see if you look at the abstract where it is not capitalized in the running text.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes I have. I take your answer as a "Yes". This invalidates your previous claim Pollard, the main expert, doesnt capitalize it. Eldizzino (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Have you ever heard about title case? Wikipedia doesnt use it but the journal American Antiquity does, as you can see if you look at the abstract where it is not capitalized in the running text.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)