Talk:Central Piers

Move?

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. At first glance, editors seem to disagree on whether the goal of avoiding unnecessary disambiguation should trump all other concerns. It's not certain they would even agree that is what they are doing. The proponent of the move, 92.40.233.132, mentions a parallel discussion at Talk:South Pier, Blackpool#Move? but that one also ended with no move. There was even some dissension on whether Central Ferry Piers will be considered to be a proper name by the average reader. Some editors seem to think that people will assume that this is the generic concept of 'central ferry piers'. It is hard to think of any evidence you could gather about this one way or the other. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

---

• Unnecessary disambiguation – 92.40.233.132 (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

See also substantial discussions at Talk:South Pier, Blackpool#Move? and Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Talk:South Pier, Blackpool. 92.40.233.132 (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Leave ", Hong Kong" in. There are ferry piers, central or otherwise, in many places. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

  I don't follow. These aren't merely ferry piers described as "central". Their English-language name is "Central Ferry Piers". Is this proper noun used elsewhere? —David Levy 23:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Anthony. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

  Would you care to elaborate? We're discussing Central Ferry Piers, not central ferry piers. We have no other target for Central Ferry Piers, as this name doesn't appear to be used elsewhere. —David Levy 13:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Central Ferry Piers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was a disambiguation page [1] -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

  It was a nonstandard disambiguation page that linked to articles about some of the individual Hong Kong piers (past and present) collectively known as "Central Ferry Piers". None of the articles pertained to different "Central Ferry Piers" (which evidently don't exist). —David Levy 13:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Too generic for no disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

  Perhaps you could elaborate. Is anyone reading my replies? —David Levy 14:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. This is clearly a proper noun (note the caps) with only one meaning. The DAB is superfluous and, like User:David Levy, I challenge the proposers to elaborate their opposition or cite other Central Ferry Piers actually in existence. —  AjaxSmack  00:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I hope that the closer examines the arguments (and absence thereof). I've attempted to engage the "oppose" voters in discussion, to no avail. No one has suggested an alternative target for "Central Ferry Piers" or explained how that proper noun describes anything other than this article's subject. —David Levy 17:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - per nom. Despite an extensive search I cannot find any other similarly named piers, apart from a central ferry pier in Bangkok which doesn't have an article. That said, even if there was such an article I think the Hong Kong article would be the primary topic because the Bangkok one appears to be called Sathorn mainly. Green Giant (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Green Giant and AjaxSmack. This capitalization seems sufficient when there's nothing else to disambiguate against. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• VEHEMENTLY oppose I have to say, after having moved it here from what was definitely an ambiguous title, I feel that this proposed move is counter-intuitive. The title is ambiguous – are these the ones in 'Central' wherever Central may be, or are we referring to the ones in the middle? Nothing needs to occupy the space 'Central Ferry Piers', but feel free to put a dab there if it makes you feel more useful. ;-) -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 10:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  Again, "Central Ferry Piers" is not the same as "central ferry piers" or "Central ferry piers". "Central Ferry Piers", capitalized as such, is a proper name. We routinely recognize and rely on such distinctions, as described in our article titles policy.
  Are you aware of any other "Central Ferry Piers" in the world? If not, how is that title ambiguous (and what would we list on a hypothetical disambiguation page)? Your alternative idea that nothing occupy the title (the subject's exact English-language name) is equally perplexing.
  Are you concerned that readers might ignore the capitalization of "Jefferson Standard Building" and interpret it to mean "a standard building in Jefferson (wherever that may be)"? Should we move the article to Jefferson Standard Building, North Carolina and delete Jefferson Standard Building or make it a one-article disambiguation page? —David Levy 10:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  Whilst I agree that "Central Ferry Piers" is not the same as "central ferry piers" or "Central ferry piers", we don't for a start here have the luxury of making the distinction between "central ferry piers" and "Central ferry piers". The vast majority of proper nouns are unmistakable and unambiguously so, including your cited 'Jefferson Standard Building'. Quite unlike "central ferry piers", the term JSB is hardly ever going to set people off on the wrong track. However because the lines are often blurred, people are often known to gratuitously or misguidedly capitalise certain terms (like 'Chief Executive Officer, 'Chief Engineer', or 'Prime Minister') that are plausibly proper nouns when they are not. All three words "central" "ferry" and "pier" are very common terms that their juxtaposition still does not render the term unique in a 'proper noun' sort of way; the pluralisation of the term 'pier' opens up further ambiguity as to the plausibility of it being an ordinary noun (referring to more than one generic item). Despite the case-sensitive nature of the Wiki namespace, this subtlety often escapes readers. Deleting 'Hong Kong' from the name would be a great disservice to readers for the confusion that would be generated. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 16:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  Your position (which I see is now "VEHEMENT") is inconsistent with Wikipedia's article titles policy and the normal practices described therein.
  Said policy includes the example titles "Red meat" and "Red Meat". The phrase "red meat" describes an ordinary, generic item, for which we have an article (Red meat). For the comic strip "Red Meat", our article's title is distinguished solely by a single difference in case. Again, this example is cited in the policy (and has been for years). And in the matter at hand, we don't even have a Central ferry piers article from which to distinguish this article's title.
  You assert that the title "Central Ferry Piers" would "set people off on the wrong track", but you haven't explained how. In what scenario would someone seeking this article or a different article be misdirected by the title "Central Ferry Piers"? What sort of "confusion" would arise? How would having nothing occupy the title "Central Ferry Piers" (the subject's exact English-language name) assist readers?
  Regarding your alternative idea, I ask again: what would we list on a hypothetical disambiguation page? —David Levy 18:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  I do not believe my vehemence is unsupported or unreasonable under the circumstances. The accusation that it isn't founded rests solely on the case that there are no other articles by that name, and no other subject bearing that proper name here on Wikipedia. I have already stated that there seems to be a grey area where people often capitalise terms that aren't proper nouns. While this isn't right thing to do, it's quite factual that people are doing it and often fighting hard to resist downcasin. I wouldn't object in this fashion if the subject was unique and unambiguously notable as Quentin Tarantino, but we are discussing a subject whose name is composed of three extremely common words (like John Smith) in a combination that would still leave huge room for ambiguity. You often find the name 'abbreviated in English in Hong Kong because the context is alredy there, and people would almost always know what you mean. However, the title is not ambiguous in Chinese, and those who will would always refer to it as '中環碼頭', where '中環' does not mean 'middle' as it does in English but is an unambiguous proper noun for the CBD. By moving this, you would be creating extra hoops for people to jump through. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose—David, the three-word title is most unhelpful to readers who are searching. And why is it capped, anyway? You wouldn't cap Hong Kong central business district; and I see the word pier is uncapped in the first section, again and again (eastern pier, Government of Hong Kong pier, Public pier). Tony (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  David, the three-word title is most unhelpful to readers who are searching.
  Please elaborate. Should we routinely append locations in this manner (e.g. Eiffel Tower, Paris)?
  And why is it capped, anyway?
  Because it's the place's name, not merely a description. This is what those opposing the move keep missing. Just as "Sydney Opera House" isn't a generic reference an opera house in Sydney, "Central Ferry Piers" isn't a generic reference to ferry piers in Central. They've actually been named that. It's no different than if they were called "Fun Time Ferry Piers".
  and I see the word "pier" is uncapped in the first section, again and again
  Those are generic references to piers. Your observation is analogous to one that the American Airlines article contains numerous lowercase instances of "airline". —David Levy 13:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  David, this search shows in the first 100 results that there were 17 occurrences of "[C,c]entral Ferry Pier[s]" and 89 of "[C,c]entral ferry pier[s]". So about one in every six instances is not capped, and conforms to our MOSCAPS standard. This is sufficient to have the standard apply: capping is clearly not necessary, so we don't do it. That is the long-standing rule. I'm thinking of that little-known icon, the Eiffel Tower (in Johannesburg, is it?) with the lack of widely known signs about the identity or location of the subject in question, given its more generic language. Again, Hong Kong central business district ... Tony (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  David, this search shows in the first 100 results that there were 17 occurrences of "[C,c]entral Ferry Pier[s]" and 89 of "[C,c]entral ferry pier[s]". So about one in every six instances is not capped, and conforms to our MOSCAPS standard. This is sufficient to have the standard apply: capping is clearly not necessary, so we don't do it. That is the long-standing rule.
  I'm confused as to what the Google search is intended to show. Do you assert that "Central Ferry Piers" is not the place's name, so the article should be moved to Central ferry piers, Hong Kong?
  I'm thinking of that little-known icon, the Eiffel Tower (in Johannesburg, is it?) with the lack of widely known signs about the identity or location of the subject in question, given its more generic language.
  You've lost me again. I perceive some obvious sarcasm, but I don't understand what you're arguing.
  Again, Hong Kong central business district ...
  Our article, Central, Hong Kong, explains that it's part of the Central and Western District. In both articles, references to the place's name are consistently capitalized ("Central"), with the lowercase "central business district" used in the generic sense (descriptions of Central as a "central business district"). —David Levy 15:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Central Ferry Piers, Hong Kong. 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/20120426075330/http://insideretailing.com.au/IR/IRNews/-Shanghai-Tang-flagship-to-close-2697.aspx to http://insideretailing.com.au/IR/IRNews/-Shanghai-Tang-flagship-to-close-2697.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)