Talk:Lord mayor

Finland

English in part of the section is grammatically incorrect to the point of being incomprehensible. 2601:600:A37F:F111:3569:AA8C:64D8:7D34 (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Untitled

Prior to the 19th century, were London and York the only cities with Lord Mayors? 68.32.156.211 15:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC) [oops, that was me. john k 15:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)]

What exactly is the history of the Lord Mayor office? did it ever have power? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.49.80 (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

stuff

how can i contact the Mayor of Worms ?76.184.169.252 (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

- Go to the garden and get digging 85.237.234.101 (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lord mayor. 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/20120426035619/http://code.municipalworld.com/brantford/10.pdf to http://code.municipalworld.com/brantford/10.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Title capitalisation

The previous moves were reverted in May without discussion.

On the preceding move Wikipedia policy was correctly cited. MOS:JOBTITLE says articles about the titles of positions should be lower case. This is an article about the general class of positions of "lord mayor" and not a specific instance of an office. Mauls (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 9 July 2019

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. I don't really support this move away from common usage and dictionary definitions, as I've said repeatedly at recent RMs. But the trend and consensus is clear, so there's no point fighting this any longer...  — Amakuru (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Lord Mayor → Lord mayor – MOS:JOBTITLE says articles about the titles of positions should be lower case. The article is about the general class of lord mayors, not the lord mayor of any specific city. It is therefore a common noun and not a proper noun. Mauls (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Similar to other articles on roles – e.g., Governor-general, Governor-in-chief, Captain-major, Chief commissioner, Grand duke, Grand prince. See also the current RM discussion at Talk:Lord Lieutenant (proposed by the same person). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom and BarrelProof in light of MOS:JOBTITLE. Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Uncontroversial. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Conflicts with references. Conflicts with google ngram test. The capitalisation style throughout the text should be moved back to consistent "Lord Mayor". I'm guessing someone sneakily edited article ledes in a revisionist crusade against these exceptions to revisionist distinction that "proper nouns are limited to single words". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with whether it is a single word or not. None of the examples I provided above are single words, but all of those article titles use lowercase. —BarrelProof (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Not the virtual absence of "Lord mayor" vs "Lord Mayor". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course there isn't much use of "Lord mayor" (except at the beginning of a sentence). People would generally either capitalize both words or would use lowercase for both words. —BarrelProof (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes, that was the ridiculous mistake. The comparison should have been [1], but still Dicklyon’s is better. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Not a proper name, but a generic title. Lord Mayor of London is a proper name (a specific, unique post held by only one individual at a time). Lord mayor is not. It would be perfectly reasonable to refer to the Lord Mayor of London (or anywhere else) as the Lord Mayor (which is what the ngram test is mostly picking up), but generically we would refer to lord mayors or a lord mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Please don’t confuse “name” with “noun”. These are two-word proper nouns. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

No, they're clearly names. The name of a post. But in this case, not! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

A clearer picture comes from an n-gram comparison such as this one. Caps are still in the majority, but not close to "consistently"; they are clearly optional, so WP style is to choose lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

If ngram is not overwhelming, you need to survey quality sources. Ngram is not reliable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

So why did you present that ridiculous comparison using n-grams, rather than a more meaningful one? Yes, let's look at reliable sources, it seems unlikely that cherrying picking from them will make a convincing argument that this term is "consistently capitalized", in light of the n-gram stats. Dicklyon (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Ridiculous? Are you emotional about this? I did some investigating. Ngrams are nicely illustrative, although one must appreciate that they are not reliable. It’s true, you presented a better test, I think, excluding table and directory listings, and your shows non-negligible use of “a lord mayor”. I don’t mean to discount that, but to say can we follow up with cases of quality sources doing this. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Note that an ngram will count "Lord Mayor of London" as a hit for "Lord Mayor". But when the "of London" part of it is omitted (and not implied), it should use lowercase. Wikipedia generally avoids uppercase when there is doubt about it. Not all sources follow that convention. —BarrelProof (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2019 (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.