Talk:Rococo Revival

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Franklin and Marshall College/London Paris (Spring 2015)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

On 21 September 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Rococo revival. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Requested move 21 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Perhaps it would be useful to analyze all of the "X Revival" articles and see whether they should, in general, be capitalized or not. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rococo Revival → Rococo revival – Per MOS:CAPS, the Wikipedia guidelines specify that we should render something as a proper name only if it is "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources". However, looking at a pair of ngrams for this, one comparing the capitalised form of the bare name against other common capitalisations - [1] and the other including the word "was" afterwards, to eliminate false positives from titles and suchlike - [2] - we can see that while 20 or 30 years ago the title-case version was very dominant, in recent times it has dwindled to almost neck-and-neck. Thus the stipulation above is no longer met, and we should render this in sentence case. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Arts, WikiProject Visual arts and WikiProject Television and the MOS:CAPS noticeboard have been notified of this discussion.

Support – Here's another n-gram view showing only a modest tendency to capping. Per Amakuru and guidelines, we should not be using unnecessary capitalization here. Dicklyon (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:CONSISTENT: "To the extent that it is practical, titles should be consistent among articles covering similar topics." All but one of the 23 articles in Category:Revival architectural styles on styles with "Revival" in their names capitalise the initial letter of that word; the sole exception is Russian neoclassical revival. Ham II (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per Ham II's consistency analysis as well as these better n-grams, which show uppercase really taking off in 1977 and only returning to Earth because the mass media may not be writing about the topic anymore (in any upper or lowercase). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ham II and Randy Kryn. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per guidlines and evidence provided by nom. WP:CONSISTENT refers to patterns of naming. It invokes WP:TITLECON which explains that it refers to documented topic-specific conventions on article titles. WP:LOWERCASE (also part of WP:AT) tells use to use sentence case for article titles. There is nothing at WP:AT to suggest there are exceptions to this instruction. Invoking WP:CONSISTENT to suggest ~~revolution~~revival should be capitalised in this article title misrepresents the spirit and intent of WP:AT and WP:CONSISTENT, in particular. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no word 'Revolution' in the title, lower or uppercased. You simply copy/pasted an argument you made a minute earlier at another RM. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad but yes, I did copy and paste a previous argument because it addresses to same misrepresentation the spirit and intent of WP:AT. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing for a topic-specific naming convention for styles with "Revival" in their names (but also for artistic/architectural styles more broadly; they're currently not explicitly covered by MOS:CAPS). I've shown that there is a pattern in existing article titles, broken by only one article. I don't see how invoking topic-specific conventions helps the case for lowercase "revival" – a "topic-specific" convention does imply an exception to a "project-[i.e., Wikipedia-]wide" convention – but then again this was copied and pasted from another article's talk page. Ham II (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no documented topic specific naming convention applicable here. See those listed at WP:TITLECON. That is what WP:CONSISTENT is about. [B]ut then again this was copied and pasted from another article's talk page. So what? Attacking an argument because it was copied and pasted does not address the substance of the argument and is a WP:STRAWMAN. The arguments made both here and there as to WP:CONSISTENT are in essence the same (other stuff exists). In both cases, the arguments are a pettifogging misrepresentation of what WP:CONSISTENT is actually about. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not consistently capitalized in sources, and a major arts movement being capitalized (something we tolerate to some extent, whether that's a good idea or not) does not magically translate into modifiers tacked onto it, especially when descriptive of revivalist or other minor movements/influences that themselves do not consistitute major new movements in their own right. PS: What multiple N-grams show is that there was something of a heyday of capitalization of this term (across a comparatively small number of publications) from around the 1980s to the mid-2000s, but that capitalization of it today is in sharp decline (as is coverage of it in independent sources as a topic at all). This reduction in unnecessary capitalization is happening despite any influence WP might have by over-capitalizing it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revivals of artistic and architectural styles can reasonably be called styles in their own right, and calling them "minor" is just looking for another reason to decapitalise – not that capitalisation should be based on importance in any case. See how the Grove articles on the following revival styles begin:
- Greek Revival: Term used to describe a style inspired by the architecture of Classical Greece that was popular throughout Europe and the USA in the early 19th century 1
- Gothic Revival: Term applied to a style of architecture and the decorative arts inspired by the Gothic architecture of medieval Europe 2
- Colonial Revival: Term applied to an architectural and interior design style prevalent in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the USA and Australia 3
Ham II (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.