Talk:Cambodian Civil War

Requested move 29 April 2025

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. There continues to be disagreement about whether "usually capitalized" in MOS:MILTERMS is just shorthand for the normal standard ("consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources") or is actually meant as a separate, much lower threshold. This question really needs to be resolved by RfC (as suggested here), but until then, I can't say with my closer hat on that either side is clearly in the wrong. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

---

Cambodian Civil War → Cambodian civil warCambodian civil war – Per WP:NCCAPS, this is far from consistently capped in sources. See ngram (here) and google scholar search (here). Note that ngrams also capture non-prose uses such as the titles of references written in title case. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support as more consistent. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Relisting comment - no objections so far, but giving it one more week since there's been minimal participation and capitlization is always controversial. Noting that the ngram evidence isn't quite as "slam dunk" as it is in other cases, given that in recent sources the capitalised form enjoys double the hit percentage compared with the sentence case.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose – per MOS:MILTERMS, usually capped in sources. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  Based on linguistic studies of how usually is usually understood as a percentage (see here), the evidence indicates that this does not meet a threshold of usually. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  "Most often" is the objective definition. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  "Most often" is not what MILTERMS says but "usually". The source provided tells us how "usually" is linguistically perceived as a percentage. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  "Usually", per dictionary definition, means "most often". The word does not create confusion as to its meaning. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  The Merriam-Webster definition for usually is: Template:Tq. The source I cited gives the following definition from the OED: Template:Tq. To determine what a definition means, one considers a definition as a whole rather than cherry picking one particular part of the definition because it might happen to support a particular argument. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  I believe it is intended for MOS:MILTERMS to be consistent with MOS:CAPS, which uses "consistently" rather than "usually", saying that "Template:Tq." Also, my understanding is that "usually" ordinarily means something more than "More often than not". I suppose the meanings of these are precisely what the academic paper referenced by Cinderella is measuring objectively, and it estimates that "More often than not" typically means about 64%, while "Usually" typically refers to the higher range of 70–84%. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  Dictionaries seem to include a "most often" dividing line. "Usually=most often" doesn't seem too controversial if dictionaries agree. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  "Most often" is not one of the phrases that was measured in the above-referenced publication, although it did measure how most people interpret "usually" (70–84%). Perhaps that is the way most people would interpret "most often" as well. In any case, I believe it should be interpreted to be consistent with MOS:CAPS, as we can look there for guidance as well. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose We have articles titled American Civil War and English Civil War. What's wrong with an article titled Cambodian Civil War? Smallchief (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  Each case is different. We also have Syrian civil war and Sri Lankan civil war. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  Therefore, it has equal merit to change the titles of Syrian civil war and Sri Lankan civil war to Syrian Civil War and Sri Lankan Civil War. Why not change the titles of those articles to conform to Cambodian Civil War rather than the reverse? Smallchief (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  No, there is not Template:Tq to uppercase those titles because Template:Tq. Capitalisation is determined by the prevailing P&G and by assessing evidence of usage for each case. For Syrian civil war and Sri Lankan civil war, there is an affirmative consensus (by RM) to lowercase - in accordance with the prevailing P&G and evidence of usage. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  Syrian civil war and Sri Lankan civil war are correct per MOS:MILTERMS, as they are not usually uppercased. This one is. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS:MILTERMS, uppercase is the usual rendition. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:MILTERMS and rest of MOS:CAPS. Not often enough capped in sources to treat as a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

  MOS:MILTERMS requires only a majority ("usually" capitalized), which this now meets. This is another example of a successful revolution which only after a few decades acquires its uppercased status. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)