Talk:Golconda

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. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd be cautious about interpreting the ngram results. Some % of results are always going to be capitalized because they appear in title-case contexts. e.g. Here's a similar ngrams search for "
  tort law" vs. "Tort Law". This is clearly not a proper noun, but the capitalized version still gets around 20% the results of the uncapitalized one. It's important to click through to the actual google books results to see the usage in context. Colin M (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Well I think tort law is a common noun (and your ngram graphs proved it) but Golconda Fort is a proper noun. Please check Google Books search results, it seems "Golconda Fort" with capital spelling is more common than "Golconda fort". For example, the first 9 books that I see all appear to use "Golconda Fort" (including A Guide to Golconda Fort and Tombs, Tourism Development in India: A Case Study, Islamic Heritage Architecture and Art II, Majestic Monuments of India: Ancient Indian Mega Structures, Census of India, 1991: Mahbubnagar). In addition, the Google search quoted earlier returns results for "Golconda Fort" almost exclusively. I think "Golconda Fort" seems to be at least ten times more common than "Golconda fort" on Google search. Thanks,

Khestwol (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Not saying I disagree with this move, just making a point about the interpretation of one of your pieces of evidence. i.e. that just because 'Golconda Fort' outnumbers 'Golconda fort' by a ~2:3 ratio doesn't imply the (seemingly obvious) interpretation that 60% of sources are treating it as a proper noun.

Also, I think by citing that first example ("A Guide To Golconda Fort And Tombs") you're falling into exactly the trap I'm talking about. Yes, "Fort" is capitalized in the title, but that's because it's the title - they're capitalizing all the words. The Google Books result for that reference doesn't give any indication about whether they capitalize "fort" in the running text. Fortunately, that work is in the public domain, so you can see the full text on archive.org. It seems it doesn't actually use the term 'Golconda [fF]ort' anywhere in the body (only in the title, and some of the titles in the list of illustrations), though it does include the following phrases (capitalization preserved): "fort of Golconda", "fortress of Qolconda", "Golconda forts". Colin M (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Proper name. This confusion is unfortunately rather common for buildings in countries that do not have English as a first language. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the proposed title "Golconda Fort" is also
  Khestwol (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. I agree, good case for this being the proper name. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 06:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

talk page or in a move review

. No further edits should be made to this section.

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. This place seems more notable than other Golcondas as seen here. (non-admin closure) Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]