Jump to content

Talk:Eurasian Plate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Untitled]

[edit]

I think that whoever wrote this needs to do a better job on explaining because this is not clear at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your contributions. Wikipedia is a wiki, and anyone- including you! - can edit nearly any article, at any time, by clicking the Edit This Page link at the bottom of the article. You don't even need to login, although there are several reasons why you might want to. So, feel free to be bold and make this correction yourself! If you are unsure about how to edit a page, try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. - Fennec 03:17, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Requested move 6 October 2024

[edit]

– Sources usually use lowercase plate for these (I have checked many, including all the major plates, e.g. using books n-grams, but not yet all 74). I think the minor and micro plates should just follow for consistency, unless someone finds one or more that are consistently capped in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "Plate" should remain capitalized in the article titles, such as "Eurasian Plate" or "North American Plate," in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Proper names versus generic terms. These terms refer to specific, formal names of geological entities, where capitalization is standard practice. Their names are proper nouns, much like how we capitalize the word "ocean" in "Atlantic Ocean". The word "Plate" is an integral part of these names, not a generic descriptor, and therefore warrants capitalization.
Since you brought up Atlantic Ocean, look at n-gram stats for that. That's how sources treat proper names. Compare with any of the plate names, and you'll see they are not at all like that. Dicklyon (talk) 06:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, scientific literature and authoritative sources in geology overwhelmingly capitalize the word "plate" when referring to specific tectonic plates (see this book for example). Lowercasing it would not only depart from Wikipedia's style guidelines but also from widely accepted conventions in academic and educational contexts. AstrooKai (Talk • Contributions) 04:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Astroo, I don't know where you're getting your impression of "overwhelmingly capitalize", but it's amusing that the one book you cite consistently uses lowercase "plate" in the figure labels, but uppercase in the caption. Like what GeoWriter is worried about, but in the other direction. I don't think it ruins the book, but does call into question their assessment of what's a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 06:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose these proposed renames/moves. I agree with the 04:33, 8 October comments of User:AstrooKai. The Google Books ngram analysis does not consider enough context. I could write factually correct statements such as "The Eurasian Plate is one of Earth's largest plates" (in which "Plate" is part of a proper noun and therefore capitalised) but I could also write factually correct statements such as "Eurasian plate boundaries are divergent, convergent or transform" (in which "plate" is an adjective describing boundaries; it is not a part of a proper noun and not capitalised). Also, many images of plates in Wikimedia Commons/Wikipedia have the plate name as e.g. "African Plate" not "African plate" so I think that an unnecessary and difficult-to-fix inconsistency would be created if plate names were changed from e.g. "African Plate" to "African plate" in article text. GeoWriter (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    True, the n-grams don't tell the whole story. It's always a good idea to search and see what uses you can find of the identified phrase. Doing that, I didn't see any uses of "Eurasian plate" referring to anything but the Eurasian plate. I'm not saying that none exist, just that there aren't enough to have much effect on the n-gram stats. The thing about over-capitalization in figure labels is widespread in Wikipedia, but is not really a problem; we fix what we can and don't bother so much about what we can't fix. Currently, the worst inconsistency is that certain things are presented in title and text as proper names when reliable sources don't really support that interpretation. You can see what I mean by taking an n-gram link like this one and putting different plate names in. Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a specified search term, an Ngram search gives a count of all found sources but it does not differentiate between reliable sources, unreliable sources, contextually relevant and contextually irrelevant. For example, a search result for "African plate" that could have been found in a book about African culture or art such as a text fragment stating "... the exquisitely painted African plate, made of clay, from the 17th century ..." would be a false positive that is irrelevant to the context of plate tectonics. You seem to think that such false positives would be so few and far between that they can be dismissed because they would not affect the overall result. I disagree because I think that we do not know how many false positives are found by Ngram. This suggests to me that Ngram search results are of unknown quality, which does not seem to be a good basis to make such a wide ranging change to Wikipedia. Also, in the course of this discussion, your assertion seems to have moved from most sources use "plate" not "Plate" - when you wrote "Sources usually use lowercase plate" (for which you have shared Ngram search results) to claiming that most reliable sources use "plate" not "Plate", (which I doubt can be proved by Ngram) when you later wrote "certain things are presented in title and text as proper names when reliable sources don't really support that interpretation" . I am not aware of any way to evaluate the reliability of large quantities of books in Google Books. I do not regard the likes of e.g. a travel book written by an expert on Italian tourist sights that mentions the "Eurasian plate" [1], that will have been included in the "plate" count by Ngram, as a reliable source for influencing whether or not Wikipedia should use "Eurasian Plate" or "Eurasian plate". Ngram analysis can be useful in some ways but it cannot tell us if "plate" or "Plate" is used more frequently in reliable sources.
For comparison, Ngrams show "sun" is more frequent than "Sun" [2], "moon" is more frequent than "Moon" [3], "earth" is more frequent than "Earth" [4], but Wikipedia uses Sun, Moon and Earth.
Moving on to another problem that affects attempts to assess the reliability of allegedly reliable sources: in my experience, the grammatical awareness and vocabulary of many earth scientists are not as consistent as they should be. I have often found that some authors, including some experts, will use "plate" and "Plate" (as well as uppercase/lowercase versions of many other technical terms) interchangeably in the same book, article, paragraph or sentence, i.e. these authors either don't know or don't care about consistency or accuracy. They are entitled to do this but it does not help us to resolve this issue in Wikipedia. There is an argument for "if some experts don't know or don't care, why should Wikipedia care?", in which case I think the simplest solution is to retain the current uppercase versions of plate names. GeoWriter (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning oppose, in agreement with comments by AstrooKai and GeoWriter above. I would want to a see a lot more evidence in context to support this big of a change. BD2412 T 15:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can work on that. Hold on... Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See if the subsection I added below helps. Maybe I should have started proposing just the major ones, for a simpler discussion. But the evidence seems pretty clear, or at least I'm unable to find any that look like they should are treated as proper names, per the criterion in MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I suppose geographical features have always been Proper Nouns unlike say... sports tournaments or government ministries and offices. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But source stats don't align with your supposition. Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Howard the Duck quacks wisdom here. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am reserving my decision pending more complete evidence - even a somewhat random sample. But the arguments made so far to oppose the move are not particularly convincig. While specificity is a property of a proper noun|name, it is not a defining property since specificity can be achieved by use of the definite article (the), with or without the addition of modifiers (such as Eurasian). Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Proper names versus generic terms is telling us not to cap school and university in the example the high school is near the university, even though we are referring to a specific school and university. The question here is whether these plates are proper names that are consistently capped in sources in the same way as Pacific Ocean (here) or Stanford University (here). If the ngram for Eurasian plate is indicative, then clearly not. Whether the example phrase given above Eurasian plate boundaries are divergent ... is parsed as Eurasian plate-boundaries or Eurasian-plate boundaries is debatable. If the former is intended, it should probably be written as the Eurasia plate boundaries. Ngrams can be contexturalised (eg here). It is clearly indicating that the term is far from being consistently capitalised. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, in accordance with proper names of major Earth-structures per WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:COMMONSENSE. For example, the North American Plate is obviously a "thing", a stand-alone single object, like the Moon and the Sun. Wikipedia uppercases proper names of oceans, rivers, canyons, seas, mountain ranges, and structures such as the San Andreas Fault. All the n-grams in the world can't deny the fact that the Earth's plates have been located, defined, and mapped as distinctive properly named features of the planet. Having recently completed a large uppercase run of these plates I can attest that they are real, solid, and encyclopedically covered as stand-alone extremely large objects (the very definition of something with a proper name). Do we need to ignore the n-grams in order to maintain encyclopedic commonsense? Certainly. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Volcanoguy 15:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Per above. The below section of ngrams are not useful, as ngrams for names with common nouns are typically, time and time again, quite inaccurate and lack meaningful context. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Josh, the n-grams I provided below have considerable context, and if you click through to sources and look for uses other than we mean here, in sentences, it's hard to find any. The stats are clearly much more meaningful here than in cases like "Sun/sun" where we distinguish by different uses. We don't have any such different uses here – or nobody has been able to find and show us such. Dicklyon (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Per above. Also, I completely agree about ngrams being useless as evidence in this case . Paul H. (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are plenty of legitimate phrasings that will undercase "plate" next to one of these words. More importantly, I checked with a geologist friend of mine, and he says that "Plate" is capitalized. We should trust the authorities on the matter. SnowFire (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your anecdote about a personal conversation is not an authority. A geology and geophysics style guide would be an authority (though not necessarily one we would follow, since WP is written in a style for a general readership and frequently eschews stylistic preferences of specialist publications).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: Why exactly you dismiss a genuine, useful inquiry into the matter as an "anecdote" is a mystery to me, but sure, I'll grant that "somebody said this" is not, strictly speaking, the argument itself. However, where do you think said geologist got his information from? Perhaps an overview of the relevant sources and authorities? The "anecdote" is a suggestion that yes, the relevant sources capitalize.
    As for your invocation of specialist style, non-geologists aren't exactly talking about these plates very often, so it's a moot point. Specialist style only comes up when there's one term in, say, newspapers, and another term used by academics in journal publications with 0.01% of the readership. Not the case here, nor is it even clear that ngrams actually supports the idea of a split as I already stated. SnowFire (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since actual usage in sources is overwhelmingly lowercase, and that is really the entire and only question before us. While the N-gram results below have raised some (poorly founded, from what I can determine) skepticism, mostly from the typical "oppose every lower-casing move no matter what" gallery, an actual examination of the usage of these terms - as geological/geographical ones, not as false positives in reference to anything else (which are rare to non-existent for most of these terms anyway) - shows that they are near-consistently lowercase in the source material, with only about a 0-25% capitalization rate (outside title-case headings), depending on term. I plugged them one after another into Google Scholar, and this does not take long. Start with this as an example and just paste in different names.

    The vast majority of the "oppose" !votes here are simply invalid; when they offer a rationale at all instead of "me too" just-a-vote, they are arguments that ignore P&G, badly misinterpret P&G to mean what the respondent wishes they meant, or are expressions of anger at the P&G and/or at Dicklyon. If someone wants to change the rules to require capitalization of every sort of geographical/geological terminology regardless of dominant usage in sources, then the place to make that proposition is WT:MOS (and good luck with that). PS: The idea that MOS:PN in particular somehow supports capitalizing this is absurd. See the top of MOS:CAPS: Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. (Emphasis in original.) "Proper name" for WP purposes explicitly means that which is consistently capitalized in English-language RS as one. Pretending that "whatever I like to personally conceive of as something that should be a proper name, in the way I like to think of proper names, is something WP must capitalize" is nonsensical circular reasoning, abusing MOS:PN, which derives its definition of "proper name" from the lead of MOS:CAPS (which contains MOS:PN), as if it's license to declare anything a proper name for any subjective reason, to subvert the clear instructions and intent of MOS:CAPS.

    It's silly, tedious and habitual among a certain crowd of RM participants, and it needs to stop. It's a massive drain on editorial time and goodwill, the source of nearly all capitalization-related conflict here. And it's also obnoxiously hypocritical. These same RM trawlers go on and on about "following the sources" any time it suits their desires (but by which they generally mean following a very slight majority of sources in favor of capitalization – a slight majority which is not our substantial-majority standard - from among a highly selective set of sources they prefer, while doing everything they can to pooh-pooh evidence from other sources), then about-face and argue over and over again to ignore source usage and capitalize something simply because they've personally decided it "is" a "proper name". The general source of this cognitive dissonance is covered at WP:PNPN in considerable detail. In short, there are conflicting definitions of "proper name", and these gadflies are wholly enamoured of one from philosophy, but it has no connection of any kind to capitalization norms; only the linguistics meaning of proper name/proper noun does. The lack of any agreement (for several centuries now) about what "proper name" even means is the very reason that MOS:CAPS explicity defines a "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources" standard, so this definitional question is avoided. But some just will not abide its avoidance because they are huge fans of capitalization, and they badly need to drop that damned stick. You're welcome to capitalize everything in the world, at your own blog.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • "because they are huge fans of capitalization" - This is simply false, as has been expressed to you before. And infantalizing, the idea that everyone who ever opposes you does it out of some childish love of capital letters. If my geologist friend had said that "plate" was lowercased in sources, I'd have !voted support. They didn't, so I !voted oppose. It's really as simple as that. Is it so hard to believe that you might be wrong here? About others motivations, if nothing else? SnowFire (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your rants against other editors aside, can you name any definitive structures larger than these that have lowercased proper names? Earth's tectonic plates are not some abstract thought-game, they are real, massive, and, most importantly for this discussion, properly named. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Randy, the book that AstrooKai cited shows a picture like that, too, but will all the labels using lowercase "plate". Since sources don't make the use of caps appear to be necessary, our guideline says we should use lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book switches back and forth, a poorly edited volume. The point is that the structures are so prominent and well documented that they have been properly uppercased on Wikipedia as names of separate and important geological formations and features, such as oceans and mountain ranges, and that WP:COMMONSENSE overrides the guideline that sought-for undercasing relies upon. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More source n-gram stats

[edit]
  • Here's a comparison of some of the most commonly occurring plate names in books, according to n-grams.
  • I made up this bunch of n-gram URLs in a text editor, and haven't visited many of them yet, but in the process I noticed that sometimes it's instructive to have the context of "the" in front and/or "*" after, and sometimes the minor ones don't have enough book hits to show up with context (and some even not enough to show up with no context). Anyway, help me look at these and see if there's any hint of "consistently capitalized" as MOS:CAPS asks. Dicklyon (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Eurasian Plate/plate – Eurasian Plate/plate * – the Eurasian Plate/plate – the Eurasian Plate/plate *
  2. North+American Plate/plate – North+American Plate/plate * – the North+American Plate/plate – the North+American Plate/plate *
  3. Juan+de+Fuca Plate/plate – Juan+de+Fuca Plate/plate * – the Juan+de+Fuca Plate/plate – the Juan+de+Fuca Plate/plate *
  4. Farallon Plate/plate – Farallon Plate/plate * – the Farallon Plate/plate – the Farallon Plate/plate *
  5. South+American Plate/plate – South+American Plate/plate * – the South+American Plate/plate – the South+American Plate/plate *
  6. Gorda Plate/plate – Gorda Plate/plate * – the Gorda Plate/plate – the Gorda Plate/plate *
  7. Nazca Plate/plate – Nazca Plate/plate * – the Nazca Plate/plate – the Nazca Plate/plate *
  8. Antarctic Plate/plate – Antarctic Plate/plate * – the Antarctic Plate/plate – the Antarctic Plate/plate *
  9. Pacific Plate/plate – Pacific Plate/plate * – the Pacific Plate/plate – the Pacific Plate/plate *
  10. Cocos Plate/plate – Cocos Plate/plate * – the Cocos Plate/plate – the Cocos Plate/plate *
  11. Philippine+Sea Plate/plate – Philippine+Sea Plate/plate * – the Philippine+Sea Plate/plate – the Philippine+Sea Plate/plate *
  12. African Plate/plate – African Plate/plate * – the African Plate/plate – the African Plate/plate *
  13. Arabian Plate/plate – Arabian Plate/plate * – the Arabian Plate/plate – the Arabian Plate/plate *
  14. Indo-Australian Plate/plate – Indo-Australian Plate/plate * – the Indo-Australian Plate/plate – the Indo-Australian Plate/plate *
  15. Explorer Plate/plate – Explorer Plate/plate * – the Explorer Plate/plate – the Explorer Plate/plate *
  16. Anatolian Sub-Plate/sub-plate – Anatolian Sub-Plate/sub-plate * – the Anatolian Sub-Plate/sub-plate – the Anatolian+Sub-Plate/sub-plate *
  17. Australian Plate/plate – Australian Plate/plate * – the Australian Plate/plate – the Australian Plate/plate *
  18. Burma Plate/plate – Burma Plate/plate * – the Burma Plate/plate – the Burma Plate/plate *
  19. Indian Plate/plate – Indian Plate/plate * – the Indian Plate/plate – the Indian Plate/plate *
  20. Scotia Plate/plate – Scotia Plate/plate * – the Scotia Plate/plate – the Scotia Plate/plate *
  21. Caribbean Plate/plate – Caribbean Plate/plate * – the Caribbean Plate/plate – the Caribbean Plate/plate *
  22. Somali Plate/plate – Somali Plate/plate * – the Somali Plate/plate – the Somali Plate/plate *
  23. Kula Plate/plate – Kula Plate/plate * – the Kula Plate/plate – the Kula Plate/plate *
  24. Sunda Plate/plate – Sunda Plate/plate * – the Sunda Plate/plate – the Sunda Plate/plate *
  25. Tonga Plate/plate – Tonga Plate/plate * – the Tonga Plate/plate – the Tonga Plate/plate *
  26. Adriatic Plate/plate – Adriatic Plate/plate * – the Adriatic Plate/plate – the Adriatic Plate/plate *
  27. Izanagi Plate/plate – Izanagi Plate/plate * – the Izanagi Plate/plate – the Izanagi Plate/plate *
  28. Phoenix Plate/plate – Phoenix Plate/plate * – the Phoenix Plate/plate – the Phoenix Plate/plate *
  29. Intermontane Plate/plate – Intermontane Plate/plate * – the Intermontane Plate/plate – the Intermontane Plate/plate *
  30. Bellingshausen Plate/plate – Bellingshausen Plate/plate * – the Bellingshausen Plate/plate – the Bellingshausen Plate/plate *
  31. Insular Plate/plate – Insular Plate/plate * – the Insular Plate/plate – the Insular Plate/plate *
  32. Baltic Plate/plate – Baltic Plate/plate * – the Baltic Plate/plate – the Baltic Plate/plate *
  33. Charcot Plate/plate – Charcot Plate/plate * – the Charcot Plate/plate – the Charcot Plate/plate *
  34. Rivera Plate/plate – Rivera Plate/plate * – the Rivera Plate/plate – the Rivera Plate/plate *
  35. South+Sandwich Plate/plate – South+Sandwich Plate/plate * – the South+Sandwich Plate/plate – the South+Sandwich Plate/plate *
  36. Solomon+Sea Plate/plate – Solomon+Sea Plate/plate * – the Solomon+Sea Plate/plate – the Solomon+Sea Plate/plate *
  37. New+Hebrides Plate/plate – New+Hebrides Plate/plate * – the New+Hebrides Plate/plate – the New+Hebrides Plate/plate *
  38. Banda+Sea Plate/plate – Banda+Sea Plate/plate * – the Banda+Sea Plate/plate – the Banda+Sea Plate/plate *
  39. Timor Plate/plate – Timor Plate/plate * – the Timor Plate/plate – the Timor Plate/plate *
  40. Aegean+Sea Plate/plate – Aegean+Sea Plate/plate * – the Aegean+Sea Plate/plate – the Aegean+Sea Plate/plate *
  41. Balmoral+Reef Plate/plate – Balmoral+Reef Plate/plate * – the Balmoral+Reef Plate/plate – the Balmoral+Reef Plate/plate *
  42. Caroline Plate/plate – Caroline Plate/plate * – the Caroline Plate/plate – the Caroline Plate/plate *
  43. Conway+Reef Plate/plate – Conway+Reef Plate/plate * – the Conway+Reef Plate/plate – the Conway+Reef Plate/plate *
  44. Futuna Plate/plate – Futuna Plate/plate * – the Futuna Plate/plate – the Futuna Plate/plate *
  45. Juan+Fernández Plate/plate – Juan+Fernández Plate/plate * – the Juan+Fernández Plate/plate – the Juan+Fernández Plate/plate *
  46. Kermadec Plate/plate – Kermadec Plate/plate * – the Kermadec Plate/plate – the Kermadec Plate/plate *
  47. Manus Plate/plate – Manus Plate/plate * – the Manus Plate/plate – the Manus Plate/plate *
  48. Maoke Plate/plate – Maoke Plate/plate * – the Maoke Plate/plate – the Maoke Plate/plate *
  49. Mariana Plate/plate – Mariana Plate/plate * – the Mariana Plate/plate – the Mariana Plate/plate *
  50. Molucca+Sea Plate/plate – Molucca+Sea Plate/plate * – the Molucca+Sea Plate/plate – the Molucca+Sea Plate/plate *
  51. Niuafo'ou Plate/plate – Niuafo'ou Plate/plate * – the Niuafo'ou Plate/plate – the Niuafo'ou Plate/plate *
  52. North+Andes Plate/plate – North+Andes Plate/plate * – the North+Andes Plate/plate – the North+Andes Plate/plate *
  53. North+Bismarck Plate/plate – North+Bismarck Plate/plate * – the North+Bismarck Plate/plate – the North+Bismarck Plate/plate *
  54. Okinawa Plate/plate – Okinawa Plate/plate * – the Okinawa Plate/plate – the Okinawa Plate/plate *
  55. Panama Plate/plate – Panama Plate/plate * – the Panama Plate/plate – the Panama Plate/plate *
  56. Shetland Plate/plate – Shetland Plate/plate * – the Shetland Plate/plate – the Shetland Plate/plate *
  57. South+Bismarck Plate/plate – South+Bismarck Plate/plate * – the South+Bismarck Plate/plate – the South+Bismarck Plate/plate *
  58. Halmahera Plate/plate – Halmahera Plate/plate * – the Halmahera Plate/plate – the Halmahera Plate/plate *
  59. Woodlark Plate/plate – Woodlark Plate/plate * – the Woodlark Plate/plate – the Woodlark Plate/plate *
  60. Yangtze Plate/plate – Yangtze Plate/plate * – the Yangtze Plate/plate – the Yangtze Plate/plate *
  61. Madagascar Plate/plate – Madagascar Plate/plate * – the Madagascar Plate/plate – the Madagascar Plate/plate *
  62. Greenland Plate/plate – Greenland Plate/plate * – the Greenland Plate/plate – the Greenland Plate/plate *
  63. Moa Plate/plate – Moa Plate/plate * – the Moa Plate/plate – the Moa Plate/plate *
  64. Pelso Plate/plate – Pelso Plate/plate * – the Pelso Plate/plate – the Pelso Plate/plate *
  65. Tisza Plate/plate – Tisza Plate/plate * – the Tisza Plate/plate – the Tisza Plate/plate *
  66. Sangihe Plate/plate – Sangihe Plate/plate * – the Sangihe Plate/plate – the Sangihe Plate/plate *
  67. Lwandle Plate/plate – Lwandle Plate/plate * – the Lwandle Plate/plate – the Lwandle Plate/plate *
  68. Capricorn Plate/plate – Capricorn Plate/plate * – the Capricorn Plate/plate – the Capricorn Plate/plate *
  69. Rovuma Plate/plate – Rovuma Plate/plate * – the Rovuma Plate/plate – the Rovuma Plate/plate *
  70. Malpelo Plate/plate – Malpelo Plate/plate * – the Malpelo Plate/plate – the Malpelo Plate/plate *
  71. Coiba Plate/plate – Coiba Plate/plate * – the Coiba Plate/plate – the Coiba Plate/plate *
  72. Moesian Plate/plate – Moesian Plate/plate * – the Moesian Plate/plate – the Moesian Plate/plate *
  73. Trobriand Plate/plate – Trobriand Plate/plate * – the Trobriand Plate/plate – the Trobriand Plate/plate *
  74. Kshiroda Plate/plate – Kshiroda Plate/plate * – the Kshiroda Plate/plate – the Kshiroda Plate/plate *
The best and required response to all of the above: WP:IAR. Maintaining the proper and encyclopedic names of the largest structures on the planet (aside from the core and the mantle)? A classic "case" of why the policy exists. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Randy, your plea to "ignore all rules" at least acknowledges that that rules say to use lowercase here. Dicklyon (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurasian_Plate&oldid=1250477857"