Talk:Adziogol Lighthouse

message: There is no doubt the lighthouse was built in 1911. The article used to say that it was designed in 1910, I believe based on some source though it was not specified, and this was recently changed to 1911. Is 1911 based on the source? For now I returned it to 1910 with a . --Muhandes (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm, let me quote myself: "There is no doubt the lighthouse was built in 1911". There are sources for this. My question was on when it was designed, not when it was built. --Muhandes (talk) 07:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

text: OK, it was already in the "Further Reading" section, I guess it can be used as source for that. Thanks. --Muhandes (talk) 08:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  year in which it was designed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Adziogol Lighthouse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071122135221/http://www.uibk.ac.at/baugeschichte/mitarbeiter/graefe.html to http://www.uibk.ac.at/baugeschichte/mitarbeiter/graefe.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have restored the spelling "Adziogol Lighthouse" in the article. Both cited sources for the name "Adziogol Lighthouse" are scholarly sources from reliable presses (Routledge, CEU). The Strang et al. source uses an image from Wikimedia Commons, but that is the only wiki connection I can see. A stronger case needs to be made for the claim that these are "wiki-mirroring sources". Doremo (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There were no sources for the capitalization when Wikipedia first used it.  The two sources you added are 2018 sources that specifically draw on Wikipedia, including images from commons and quoted phrases from the article.  This is circular.  If you want to support the capped name as a proper name, please cite sources that did so before Wikipedia did. Dicklyon (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Or move it back to lowercase lighthouse, which is much easier to find support for in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You should provide some evidence for your claim. Doremo (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably you found the books you cited on Google Book Search via a search such as this.  You can see that several books, independent of Wikipedia, use the lowercase.  This suggests that the caps are not necessary, so per MOS:CAPS we should default to lowercase.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The search results only show that printed sources vary. MOS:CAPS states that "capitalization is primarily needed for proper names," and thus, like Brooklyn Bridge, Channel Tunnel, Eiffel Tower, etc., the usual pattern would be Adziogol Lighthouse. Doremo (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the results show that sources vary.  MOS:CAPS represents the consensus guidance that: Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are  are capitalized in Wikipedia.  Here, since sources are not any where close to consistent in capping it, we'd use lowercase.  Check sources for those other tunnels, bridges, towers, and such, and you'll see the difference. Dicklyon (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Good, you found a 2003 book that caps it.  Even if it does say it was demolished. The books with more useful info about it seem to use lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

text: If you doubt that the book Along Ukraine's River copies from Wikipedia, note that it uses WP's height (64 m) unlike the 67 and 68 m of other sources, and it has the phrase "traditional lighthouse" in quotation marks, and also quotes "vertical lattice hyperboloid structure", probably because they took it from WP, and other such things. It also has the same aka name and spelling that WP uses, which is not very common in sources before WP. Then again, it confuses it with the front light where it says it "stands in the waters", so probably didn't really research things very well. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced. Your original argument seems to be "it was copied from WP because it is different from WP" (i.e., it uses big L). Doremo (talk) 07:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not clear what you're saying.  I didn't claim it's copied from WP, just that it draws on WP, so can't be used as evidence of proper name status, since WP treated it as a proper name before those books were created (WP had the cap L until I changed it, shortly before you changed it back). Dicklyon (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the WP principle of "Retaining existing format" would also be in favor of capital L because the article was created that way and remained so for nearly 11 years (i.e., until your change three weeks ago). That move from an orthographically typical format was never discussed on the talk page. Doremo (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue is now being discussed for lighthouses in general at the relevant Wiki project, as Dicklyon is already well aware. Bermicourt (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization