Talk:Culm Measures

Latest comment: 6 years ago by DuncanHill in topic Article name

Culm Supergroup

edit

Should this article not be renamed Culm Supergroup ?

River Culm?

edit

Anyone know a connection with River Culm?

Not as far as I'm aware. My sources give alternative derivations as from Old English col, meaning coal, or Welsh cwlwm, meaning knot (because of the contorted folding of these deposits). --Portnadler 09:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have added something to this effect. The two do get confused. Ironically, the origin of their names may be linked as both may be derived from cwlwm meaning knot. If this is true in river's case it is the meanders that lead to this name.--NHSavage (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Culm NCA

edit

I've moved the section on the National Character Area from the article on the River Culm to this article. It's clear that the NCA was named for, and covers broadly the same area as, the Culm Measures, not the river which is in a different part of Devon (close, but no cream tea). Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Article name

edit

I reverted the undiscussed change of article title to the uncapitalised form. In my experience the term usually has capitals for both C and M - see for example here, here, here, here, and here. But, we should discuss it further here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oldest and newest books prefer lowercase measures, while most 20th century books cap. See [1] and [2]. It's not at all clear why Measures is capped, but Culm is (perhaps) a name in addition to a local term for the soft coal there. Dicklyon (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Seems the BGS Lexicon of Named Rock Units (used as ref #1) uses Culm Measures as a formal stratigraphic name. Vsmith (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
I suspect - but have no sources to back up the thought - that some authorities thought that the name originated from the River Culm rather than the substance "culm", and capitalised it accordingly. Then, having capitalised the first word, they or others capitalised the second word for consistency. So, a lower case form may be historically accurate, but I don't think it's what most recent or current sources apply, and if we here try to use lower case, without a clear justification from reliable sources, we appear to be prioritising WP style over real-world practice - which is something I would oppose. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
I think the BGS Lexicon always capitalises, and I also think we should defer to them on this sort of thing, as being a real world reliable source. I also think that some of these discussions on capitalisation tend to wander off into angels on pinheads territory. DuncanHill (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply