Talk:Point Potrero

message: {{templatename| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time=20:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: comment request

message: As usual, you are wrong, and I can prove it. Here's a sampling of (mostly) news articles that mention this very refinery (it's not as if they're hard to find or anything, as the facility is constantly causing problems of one kind or another):
*A CBS 5 story: "A flare-up at Chevron's Richmond refinery on Monday may have released potentially toxic chemicals into the air ...".
*An article from SF Gate: "... in view of ferryboat traffic and the Chevron refinery."
*Another SF Gate story: "Chevron's Richmond refinery produces more than 225,000 barrels per day ..."
*Another SF Gate story: "Contra Costa County officials are blaming glitches in the emergency alert system for a delay of more than an hour between the time a fire broke out at the Chevron refinery this morning ..."
Even Chevron's own press releases sometimes don't capitalize the name, like this one: "The Chevron Richmond refinery, which employs more than 1,450 employees and more than 100 contractors, is one of the largest refineries on the West Coast with a 240,000 barrel-per-day capacity."
So it should not be capitalized. Just because Chevron capitalizes it in (most of) their own press releases does not make it correct here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 07:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am surprised that I mostly disagree with Milkbreath on this.  "Richmond Refinery" is clearly the name of this facility.  Since this is a compound proper noun, both parts of the name should be capitalized.  As Chevron owns the facility, they have the right to name it, and they have named it the Richmond Refinery.  I agree with Milkbreath that "Chevron Richmond Refinery" is a bit ambiguous.  A reader might assume that all three words are part of its name, when its name is "Richmond Refinery".  Milkbreath's solution "the Chevron Corporation's Richmond refinery" is wordier than I would like and fails to capitalize both parts of the refinery's name.  My suggested solution would be "Chevron's Richmond Refinery".  First, most people know that Chevron is a corporation; second, nearly everyone would understand from the possessive that Chevron is the company that owns the Richmond Refinery.  Marco polo (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about, Chevron Corporation's, "Chevron Richmond Refinery" facilities...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomgaylove (talk • contribs) 01:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  For a start, it shouldn't have a comma.  —Tamfang (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think Marco polo has it right. After reading Chevron's website, it is clear that Chevron's refinery is named the "Richmond Refinery". The best wording is "Chevron's Richmond Refinery" when referring to it by name or "Chevron's refinery" or "the Chevron refinery" when context makes it clear what refinery is being discussed. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't agree. Yet. The refinery is named for Port Richmond, where it was built. It is Chevron's refinery at Port Richmond—the Richmond refinery. Their own site does not capitalize consistently. They call it the "Richmond plant". They don't capitalize "refinery" when it stands alone, as we would for "college", for example, if we meant one in particular. The first building there was the "Brick Storehouse". I don't care if Mr. Chevron himself named it that, I'm not capitalizing "brick storehouse" just because he did. Corporations tend to capitalize everything to do with themselves for aggrandizement's sake. We are not required to do as they do except sometimes, like for brand names ("Kleenex", not "kleenex"). It's "Chevron's Richmond refinery", unless you can see what I can see, that "Chevron" is not immediately understandable to a reader who comes in with oil the last thing on his mind. (Aside to BGL: they call it "Chevron's Richmond Refinery" on the history page, so its name can't be "Chevron Richmond Refinery".) --Milkbreath (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In your link to "Their own site" every time the two words "Richmond Refinery" appear together they are both capitalized. When refinery is used alone it is not capitalized. When some other word is used, e.g. Richmond plant, the other word is lower case. Clearly, they regard "Richmond Refinery" as a proper name. (Ditto with Alameda Refinery.)  In my home town, there is a store called, "The Store" - that is its official name. Would you not capitalize it? How about The Country Club? Sbowers3 (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not matter how Chevron (or, more precisely, whichever Chevron employee ended up doing it) capitalizes. This is an important point. It does not matter. They can get it wrong, and they did; the inconsistencies on their history page demonstrate that they didn't know or care about the rules and conventions governing capitalization. The fact that they refer to a "Richmond plant" is not evidence that "Richmond Refinery" is right, it is evidence that "Richmond" is to be construed attributively, like "Baltimore" in "their Baltimore office" (note the lowercase "o" in "office"). You say "when refinery is used alone it is not capitalized" as if that goes to prove that "refinery" is a proper noun in the phrase in question, when actually it could well be capitalized in that case. (If you want to learn more about the art of editing, a good start would be to read The Chicago Manual of Style cover to cover.) If the name of a store is "The Store", I would capitalize "store" whenever I was referring to that one (but not the "the", usually): "Of the many stores along the strip, "The Store" is the oldest. The history of this store is an interesting one. It is said that the Store got its name when the space it now occupies was converted from a bank to a store. ...." Leave this to people who both know and care. It's only important to us pathetic geeky language nerds, anyway. Throw us a bone. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: My hometown has (had?) a gay bar named The Bar, but its existence doesn't impel me to capitalize bar in general.  – Here, since I've never heard of anyone refining Richmond, I'd say something like Chevron Corporation has a major oil refinery nearby; few people outside the corporation have any reason to know or care if the refinery has a formal name, so insisting on it would be like insisting on "the Officer Fred Bloggs Memorial Viaduct" versus "the 37th Avenue overpass".  —Tamfang (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds reasonable to me; it's not as if it's Chevron's only refinery, either, so it certainly doesn't merit the status of appearing to be The One, The Only Chevron Refinery. Let's make the change you suggested. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: That wording, Chevron Corporation has a major oil refinery nearby, is a great way to deflate the argument. Get rid of the phrase, "Richmond [R]efinery" and there's no longer any reason to argue about capitalization. In any event, I don't want to argue the point. I don't feel that strongly, and I'm far from an expert on writing style, so I will depart hoping the problem is solved and will unwatch this page. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Please rephrase your objection, I can't make sense of it.  Are you saying my suggestion is ambiguous because "nearby" is vague, or because it's important to specify which Chevron refinery is nearby, or because Chevron might have more than one refinery nearby, or what?  —Tamfang (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More

message: Hi. Just popping in from the Language Reference Desk. Someone here seems to think that we over there know all about capitalization, and some of us actually do. I hope I'm one of them. First off, it doesn't matter what anybody else does, including Chevron itself. Here at Wikipedia we have to go by the Manual of Style. The first line on the MoS page about capitalization says it all: "Wikipedia follows a conservative usage style for capitalization (unnecessary capitalization is avoided)." There is nothing on that page that justifies capitalizing "refinery". If you ask me, though, capitalization is the lesser issue with that sentence. "The Chevron Richmond refinery" is puzzling to the reader. It's not immediately apparent what Chevron we're talking about, or whether there isn't a "Chevron Richmond" we should have known about. If I came in cold to copyedit, I would change it to "Chevron Corporation's Richmond refinery is just east of the range." --Milkbreath (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am surprised that I mostly disagree with Milkbreath on this.  "Richmond Refinery" is clearly the name of this facility.  Since this is a compound proper noun, both parts of the name should be capitalized.  As Chevron owns the facility, they have the right to name it, and they have named it the Richmond Refinery.  I agree with Milkbreath that "Chevron Richmond Refinery" is a bit ambiguous.  A reader might assume that all three words are part of its name, when its name is "Richmond Refinery".  Milkbreath's solution "the Chevron Corporation's Richmond refinery" is wordier than I would like and fails to capitalize both parts of the refinery's name.  My suggested solution would be "Chevron's Richmond Refinery".  First, most people know that Chevron is a corporation; second, nearly everyone would understand from the possessive that Chevron is the company that owns the Richmond Refinery.  Marco polo (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about, Chevron Corporation's, "Chevron Richmond Refinery" facilities...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomgaylove (talk • contribs) 01:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  For a start, it shouldn't have a comma.  —Tamfang (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think Marco polo has it right. After reading Chevron's website, it is clear that Chevron's refinery is named the "Richmond Refinery". The best wording is "Chevron's Richmond Refinery" when referring to it by name or "Chevron's refinery" or "the Chevron refinery" when context makes it clear what refinery is being discussed. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't agree. Yet. The refinery is named for Port Richmond, where it was built. It is Chevron's refinery at Port Richmond—the Richmond refinery. Their own site does not capitalize consistently. They call it the "Richmond plant". They don't capitalize "refinery" when it stands alone, as we would for "college", for example, if we meant one in particular. The first building there was the "Brick Storehouse". I don't care if Mr. Chevron himself named it that, I'm not capitalizing "brick storehouse" just because he did. Corporations tend to capitalize everything to do with themselves for aggrandizement's sake. We are not required to do as they do except sometimes, like for brand names ("Kleenex", not "kleenex"). It's "Chevron's Richmond refinery", unless you can see what I can see, that "Chevron" is not immediately understandable to a reader who comes in with oil the last thing on his mind. (Aside to BGL: they call it "Chevron's Richmond Refinery" on the history page, so its name can't be "Chevron Richmond Refinery".) --Milkbreath (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In your link to "Their own site" every time the two words "Richmond Refinery" appear together they are both capitalized. When refinery is used alone it is not capitalized. When some other word is used, e.g. Richmond plant, the other word is lower case. Clearly, they regard "Richmond Refinery" as a proper name. (Ditto with Alameda Refinery.)  In my home town, there is a store called, "The Store" - that is its official name. Would you not capitalize it? How about The Country Club? Sbowers3 (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not matter how Chevron (or, more precisely, whichever Chevron employee ended up doing it) capitalizes. This is an important point. It does not matter. They can get it wrong, and they did; the inconsistencies on their history page demonstrate that they didn't know or care about the rules and conventions governing capitalization. The fact that they refer to a "Richmond plant" is not evidence that "Richmond Refinery" is right, it is evidence that "Richmond" is to be construed attributively, like "Baltimore" in "their Baltimore office" (note the lowercase "o" in "office"). You say "when refinery is used alone it is not capitalized" as if that goes to prove that "refinery" is a proper noun in the phrase in question, when actually it could well be capitalized in that case. (If you want to learn more about the art of editing, a good start would be to read The Chicago Manual of Style cover to cover.) If the name of a store is "The Store", I would capitalize "store" whenever I was referring to that one (but not the "the", usually): "Of the many stores along the strip, "The Store" is the oldest. The history of this store is an interesting one. It is said that the Store got its name when the space it now occupies was converted from a bank to a store. ...." Leave this to people who both know and care. It's only important to us pathetic geeky language nerds, anyway. Throw us a bone. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: My hometown has (had?) a gay bar named The Bar, but its existence doesn't impel me to capitalize bar in general.  – Here, since I've never heard of anyone refining Richmond, I'd say something like Chevron Corporation has a major oil refinery nearby; few people outside the corporation have any reason to know or care if the refinery has a formal name, so insisting on it would be like insisting on "the Officer Fred Bloggs Memorial Viaduct" versus "the 37th Avenue overpass".  —Tamfang (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds reasonable to me; it's not as if it's Chevron's only refinery, either, so it certainly doesn't merit the status of appearing to be The One, The Only Chevron Refinery. Let's make the change you suggested. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: That wording, Chevron Corporation has a major oil refinery nearby, is a great way to deflate the argument. Get rid of the phrase, "Richmond [R]efinery" and there's no longer any reason to argue about capitalization. In any event, I don't want to argue the point. I don't feel that strongly, and I'm far from an expert on writing style, so I will depart hoping the problem is solved and will unwatch this page. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Please rephrase your objection, I can't make sense of it.  Are you saying my suggestion is ambiguous because "nearby" is vague, or because it's important to specify which Chevron refinery is nearby, or because Chevron might have more than one refinery nearby, or what?  —Tamfang (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Break for editing

message: *If the official name is "Chevron Richmond Refinery" is it a proper noun?
:i say it is.Boomgaylove (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 1

message: *Is it the real name of the facility?
:accoring to all Chevron documents i have seen it is.Boomgaylove (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 2

message: *Are proper nouns capitalized?
:yes they areBoomgaylove (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 4

message: *In what context is the lower case spelling used, and is that ever used as its name?
:See under comment #3 above, and in the section above titled "More". +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 5

message: You might like to know that User:Boomgaylove has now been blocked indefinitely per this thread (permalink) at ANI. --jonny-mt 02:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know. Don't you think indefinitely is a little Draconian? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Wikidemo's assessment on the ANI thread--it's a little surprising, but considering he displayed the blockable trifecta of sockpuppetry, personal attacks, and disruptive editing, it's not completely unreasonable.  At any rate, that's not what this talk page is for--since he was one of the parties to the edit war that led to this page being protected in the first place, I just wanted to let you know that it should be a little easier to foster consensus now. --jonny-mt 03:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: comment on banned user

message: I saw an edit which said the Potrero Hills are in Contra Costa County, not Solano County.  That puzzled me because the info box with the county was automatically generated from USGS GNIS data.  So I looked into what GNIS has to say about it.  Sometimes there can be more than one place with the same name, which we'd disambiguate by adding the county to the title.  More often, there's an actual difference in the official name.  Here's the result: we need to split the article because the name and the content are mixing up two different sites:
*  entry #230993, Solano County 
*  entry #253773, Contra Costa County 
I hope that helps.  Ikluft (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I searched for references for "Potrero Hills" in Richmond.  It became obvious pretty quickly where the nickname and confusion came from. People call those hills the Potrero Hills because there's a Potrero Hills Landfill there.  The Potrero Hills Landfill Group company is located at both the Potrero Hills of Solano County and Point Potrero of Contra Costa County.  So it obviously became an easy nickname in Richmond as well, even though it isn't the name the cartographers use for the hills. This should help solve that problem and keep Wikipedia's presentation of the landforms grounded in supportable references. Ikluft (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking closer at the search results, it looks like the landfills in those areas just get mentioned next to each other a lot.  So I didn't find a good reference for why the Richmond locals call them the Potrero Hills.  But anyway, USGS supports Point Potrero for that location - it's the only GNIS entry with Potrero in Contra Costa County. Ikluft (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

text: To separate the articles and avoid continuing this confusion, I moved Potrero Hills to Point Potrero and added a GNIS cite.  I created a new Potrero Hills article using a script that generates a wikipedia stub for a mountain range from USGS GNIS data. (I already used that script to make over 200 mountain range stubs each for California and Nevada.)  I then added  headings to these two articles as well as Potrero Point and Potrero Hill in SF to avoid further confusion. Ikluft (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  article split needed: Point Potrero (Contra Costa County) and Potrero Hills (Solano County)