Wikipedia

Talk:History of Fremantle Prison

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Main Cell Block edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago24 comments4 people in discussion
 – Discussion is relevant to Fremantle Prison and all its sub-articles, not just the history one - Evad37 [talk] 04:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Discussion moved

Is "Main Cell Block" a proper noun? I suspect not (because requires "the" when used in a sentence, and proper nouns typically do not), so it ought not be capitalised. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Likewise "Refractory Block". Mitch Ames (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

From memory, different sources varied in whether the terms were capitalised or lower case. Perhaps the common nouns got turned into proper nouns as part of the tourist branding? - Evad37 [talk] 14:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
I feel like it probably would be a proper noun in this case, as distinct parts of a heritage site rather than just describing parts of an ordinary prison. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
I disagree that it is a proper noun. Unfortunately Australian National Heritage Listing Gazettal Notice for Fremantle Prison is not very helpful - it is not consistent in its use of capitalisation.
(The same issue - capitalisation of Main Cell Block - applies to Fremantle Prison.) Mitch Ames (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
I'll review the sources I've used (later tonight or tomorrow) to see if a trend emerges - if so, we can follow what the majority of the sources use. Evad37 [talk] 10:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

What the sources say – full citations at Fremantle Prison#References –

Proper noun
  • various fremantleprison.com.au material: Main Cell Block
  • Coley, McCarthy, & Richards 2004: Main Cell Block
  • McGivern 1988: Main Division
  • Megahey 2000: Main Division
Common noun
  • Bosworth 2004: main cell block
  • Stevenson 1983: main cell block
  • Saunders 1960: the cell block
  • Witcomb 2012: main cell block
  • "Government releases maintenance..." media statement: main cell block
  • Murray 2009: main cellblock
  • Georgiou 1995: main cell building
  • Daily News 1931: main block
  • Stokes 1968: main block
Both
  • Ayris 2003: both 'Main Cell Block' and 'main cell block'
  • Australian National Heritage Listing Gazettal Notice
  • Australian Heritage Database: both 'Main Cell Block' and 'main cell block'
  • Hamilton 2011: both 'Main Cell Block' and 'main cell block'
  • Gibbs 2001: both 'Main Cell Range' and 'main cell range' – Gibbs, Martin. The archaeology of the convict system in Western Australia [online]. Australasian Historical Archaeology, Vol. 19, 2001: 60-72. Availability: <http://0-search.informit.com.au.catalogue.slwa.wa.gov.au/documentSummary;dn=200204953;res=IELAPA> ISSN: 1322-9214. (via SLWA access to Informit, subscription required)

These are the ones I currently have access to that mention it - Evad37 [talk] 02:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

The outcome of this discussion would almost certainly apply equally to Fremantle Prison, which has been nominated for GA, so it would be good to resolve it. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
I suggest that we go with the majority, and use lower case. I believe that some publications capitalise common nouns for their own style reasons, but I know of no publications that uncapitalises proper nouns. Therefore it is more likely that the words are common nouns that some publications have capitalised for style reasons than it is that the words are proper nouns that some publications have uncapitalised. If they are common nouns, then Wikipedia should apply its own style rules (MOS:CAPS) - independently of what others use - and use sentence case. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • <edit conflict>Would it not be the case that whether its a proper noun or not would depend on the context in which the Main Cell Block is being referred to, that commonsense is being sacrificed for the sake of consistency. Remembering that one of WP 5 pillars says that policies/guidelines/rules should be interpreted to the spirit not the letter where hinders then ignore the rule. Gnangarra 13:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • Well, the lead of WP:MOS does say "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia", which seems to mne like a significant part of the spirit of the MOS, along with "The Manual of Style documents Wikipedia's house style". At the moment, there is no consistency within the articles because I was focusing on building content rather than format/style issues (if there is currently a pattern to the usage, it's by accident rather than design). Also, this is more of an issue for FA than GA, as GA requires only limited MOS compliance. - Evad37 [talk] 14:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Agreed that it won't affect GA. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
      • I was coming to say much the same as Gnangarra. I think it varies in the sources because the context varies in the sources, and that ignoring that is - as they put it well - sacrificing common sense for the sake of consistency. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
        • Well, what would these contexts be? Or rather, in the contexts it is used in this article and Fremantle Prison, which uses should be capitalised or uncapitalised (especially for statements where multiple sources could have been used as a reference)? - Evad37 [talk] 04:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
          • I mean, in the case of Fremantle, you can either refer to it as a proper noun (which most of the legal sources, notably, use), or you can refer to it as a shortening of "the prison at Fremantle", hence "Fremantle prison". Equally, one can refer to Main Cell Block (name of the building), or "the main cell block" (description of the building's purpose). Either of those contexts are appropriate, but I strongly prefer the former. I think using "Fremantle prison", especially, makes us look unprofessional, and like we don't know what a proper noun is. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Another idea: If it was the subject of a standalone article, all the alternate names would be given in the lead – so why not have something like that here, but with a footnote? E.g. have

... the main cell block[a] ...

  1. ^ Also known as main cellblock, main cell building, main block, main cell range, Main Cell Block, Main Division, or Main Cell Range

(or another way around, depending on consensus) at the first mention - Evad37 [talk] 04:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think that's a pretty silly idea. Our readers don't need an explanation to know that "main cell block" and "Main Cell Block" are the same place. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
If we decided that the article should use a mixture of lowercase and uppercase depending on whether it was a proper noun in that context (for any definition of "context"), it might be appropriate to add a footnote on first upper- and first lower-case use stating why the use is not consistent, eg something like "the term Main Cell Block was only used as a proper noun after the prison was opened as a tourist attraction; prior to that it was merely a description" (or whatever the case actually is). Mitch Ames (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
But that would be total original research. I don't understand the aversion to just using proper nouns. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
I don't have an aversion to using proper nouns if the term is a proper noun. However, just because some sources capitalise a term (possibly for their own style reasons) does not automatically make it a proper noun. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
I agree that such a note would be original research, or original synthesis. At the moment I am happy with the interpretation that the Main Cell Block is a main cell block, and either the proper noun or common noun can be used, or both (as per the sources above). The appropriateness of each usage within our articles is something that may have to be closely scrutinised at FA level. I think the concern would basically be along the lines of (the last paragraph of) WP:Manual of Style/Proper names § Place names: "An article about Junipero Serra should say he lived in Alta Mexico not the U.S. state of California because the latter entity did not exist at the time of Junipero Serra. The Romans invaded Gaul, not France, and Thabo Mbeki was the president of the Republic of South Africa, not of the Cape Colony." So if there is no indication that the proper noun Main Cell Block was used before the 1980s, is it appropriate for our articles to use the proper noun in contexts prior to the 1980s? Perhaps not as big a deal as a complete change in name, but I wouldn't be surprised if something like this came up at FAC. - Evad37 [talk] 05:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Again, original research. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

MOS:CAPS edit

Going back to MOS:CAPS, the top section says Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia. For whatever reason (to speculate would be OR), that's not the situation we have here. - Evad37 [talk] 03:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:History of Fremantle Prison/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 10:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply


Hi, I'm Calvin999, and I am reviewing this nomination.

  • newly elected Labor government → You've used the American dialect way of spelling labour, but as Australia is historically, socially and politically linked to the UK, should it not be spelt using British English? (You used the British date format further down in another section)
    • Normally, yes, but the proper name of the organisation (which I've now linked) is spelled "Labor" - Evad37 [talk] 01:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • prison to lock up criminals. → 'to lock up' is too informal. i suggest 'incarcerate'
  • Is the entire second paragraph of the Background sub-section all attributed to the citation at the end?
    • The first half of the first sentence is sourced to ref 2 (Appleyard), the rest is sourced to ref 1 (Ayris). It was a long paragraph, so I've split it into two. - Evad37 [talk] 01:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • In the Second Royal Commission sub-section, again you've used Labor.
Outcome

This is really well written and I can't find anything else to be honest. On hold for 7 days, though I'm sure you won't need that long.  — Calvin999 16:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've replied above; thanks for reviewing! - Evad37 [talk] 01:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
You're welcome. Passing.  — Calvin999 09:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on History of Fremantle Prison. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on History of Fremantle Prison. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on History of Fremantle Prison. 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:

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) 17:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Fremantle_Prison&oldid=1207552746"