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: moved. Supporters generally cite the MOS:CAPS guideline. In contrast, those opposing cite consistency with similar articles, but generally do not object to moving similar articles to lowercase as well, which would maintain consistency. I therefore put more weight to the supporting arguments. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Panhandle → Florida panhandle – Not consistently capped in sources per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). – robertsky (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cinderella157: New York Times uses it capitalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PK-WIKI (talk • contribs) 05:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  PK-WIKI, overall, sources only capitalise it about 50% of the time. It comes nowhere near the threshold for caitalisation per MOS:CAPS (and WP:NCCAPS). Cinderella157 (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC) PK-WIKI fix failed ping. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. I would have thought this is fairly slamdunk. I can't imagine an objective RM would conclude anythign other than that we should move it.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move: "Florida Panhandle" is capitalized by both the New York Times and Washington Post, as well as by local/regional newspapers such as the Tallahassee Democrat and Pensacola News Journal. It also matches the capitalization of our Oklahoma Panhandle article as well as *all* of the other panhandles at Panhandle (disambiguation). I'm not sure what sources go into the near-50% non-capitalization shown in your graph, but the most reliable secondary sources in 2023 are all clearly capitalizing "Panhandle". PK-WIKI (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[T]he most reliable secondary sources in 2023 are all clearly capitalizing "Panhandle". It is only opinion (not substantiated) that the newsorg sources being cited are the most reliable secondary sources in 2023. The Tallahassee Democrat and Pensacola News Journal are not reasonably independent of the topic as they are headquartered in the region and it is not consistently capped in this or this NYT article. Also, it is not capitalised by the Wall Street Journal here. Ngrams draw on a much much broader sample set of published works than four newsorg sources. While regions described as "panhandles" at Panhandle (disambiguation) all capitalise "panhandle", an ngram review of these would indicate that six should use lowercase, while two give no ngram result out of the eleven articles - indicating that other articles also need to be reviewed. "Other stuff" arguments are double-edged. We should not be consistently incorrect. However, WP:CONSISTENT and Wikipedia:TITLECON deal with naming patterns and topic-specific conventions on article titles. They do not touch on capitalisation. This is dealt with separately ate WP:AT (see WP:LOWERCASE). Cinderella157 (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find it perplexing to say the sources are not independent because they happen to be headquartered in the same region. That's assuming all the writers are from the area which I highly doubt. The New York Times and Washington Post are generally reliable sources. Names for regions are usually interchangeable with capitalization as it comes down to the context. – The Grid (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Grid, per WP:SSF, writers closely associated with a subject are prone to over-capitalisation for emphasis or distinction (see MOS:SIGNIFCAPS - we don't do that). Hence, why I would exclude the two local news sources. I would agree that the WP and NYT are generally reliable. If one reads my response above, one would see that neither is consistent in their capitalisation of Florida panhandle. While these sources are not definative, their inconsistent capitalisation indicates that (per MOS:CAPS) capitalisation is not necessary and therefore we should not be capitalising the terms. Names for regions are usually interchangeable with capitalization as it comes down to the context is a curios statement (without substantiation). If Florida panhandle only reasonably refers to the subject region, what other context is there? Proper noun|names are capitalise with near universal consistency regardless of context. Florida panhandle is not (per ngram). This tells us that capitalisation is not necessary and that we should not capitalise the term per MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per discussion and common and descriptive name. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn, descriptive names are common names (ie not proper names) and therefore they are not normally capitalised except perhaps for distinction - but we don't do that either per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know what I mean by descriptive, the panhandle shape is what gives the area its name. The name seems to be a proper name, that's what that section of Florida is named, and related uppercased names are presented by The Grid in the comment below. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would imagine the usage for the lowercase is perhaps the same as the uppercase. There's the applied name with Panhandle as the demographics and also the applied geographical name where a lowercase is sufficient. You could argue panhandle is a valid alternative but the region names are never in sentence case. (e.g., Big Bend, Emerald Coast, Space Coast, Treasure Coast, First Coast, Forgotten Coast, Gold Coast, etc) – The Grid (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lowercase – clearly not close to "consistently capitalized" in sources, so per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, we use lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Exceptions are allowed. Looking at the n-grams for this page and the articles listed below, uppercasing and lowercasing are close but, importantly, uppercasing comes out ahead in all cases. Especially if looked at throughout the decades, all have more uppercasing than lowercasing, which rides reasoning and exception quality into commonsense territory. Doesn't seem to be any ngrams for Connecticut Panhandle but sources and maps seem to say its a "thing". Randy Kryn (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Randy Kryn, I know that you have participated in enough capitalisation discussions for you to know that MOS:CAPS states: only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia and that this is a high threshold - much, much more than the slightly ahead for this article indicated by the ngram. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are clear exceptions to that guideline, including this one per comments above and below. When all the uses of 'Panhandle' in article titles which can be n-grammed show up with ngrams favoring uppercase (especially looking at past usage) then the exception-improves-the-rule. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose a lone move of this as it would not be consistent with other states (Connecticut Panhandle, Idaho Panhandle, Nebraska Panhandle, Texas Panhandle, Northern Panhandle of West Virginia, and Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia). Would support a renomination of all of these for a broader discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Elli: - just to be clear, I imagine a nomination or move of those other panhandles will quickly follow this RM, so I don't think we need to be concerned about consistency here. Do you have an objection to this move in principle, other than the consistency issue? If not, I think we should just go ahead, it would be IMHO unproductive to start all over again just for the sake of including those other cases. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Amakuru not really. I do think that such an RM might fail, and then we'd need to revisit this one, hence my preference for closing this and then making a new nomination with them all bundled (so the issue can be decided together). Elli (talk | contribs) 16:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Elli and the comment I made above showing examples of other regions in Florida. Additionally, I am a bit confused on what Cinderella157 is trying to state. I thought Ngram was a guideline. – The Grid (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC) Abstaining my vote. – The Grid (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ??? You are very confused, either about guidelines or n-grams or both. Dicklyon (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support—This is a no-brainer. A huge majority of reliable sources need to cap it for us to consider doing that. See MOS:CAPS. Tony (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - absolutely slam dunk, given the usage in reliable sources. The above opposition has no basis in policy or guidelines whatsoever, so should be largely disregarded. The moving of other panhandles can quickly follow this one too, so consistency isn't really a valid reason to hold this up. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]