Talk:Special Protection Area

Requested move
to not move the article. While its clear the original legislation did not capitalize the term, its also clear the ongoing, and common usage adopted capitalization. In this case, verifiability trumps any claims of "truth". Rockpock e  t  18:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The correct form of the term "special protection area" is not capitalised. The legislation which established the designation (Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds) does not use capitals: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31979L0409:EN:HTML) states: Member States shall classify in particular the most suitable territories in number and size as special protection areas for the conservation of these species, taking into account their protection requirements in the geographical sea and land area where this Directive applies. Mooretwin (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Further, the UK statutes do not use capitals (and the term is also "area of special protection" rather than "special protection area"). See section 3 of the [Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981]. For a good specific example of when capitals should and shouldn't be used, see [The Gibraltar Point (Area of Special Protection) Order 1995] uses capitals when referring to the specific area, i.e. the Gibraltar Point Area of Special Protection, but small letters when referring to the designation (Article 2: The area specified in the Schedule to this Order shall be an area of special protection for wild birds). Mooretwin (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support: seems like a good move. Rockpock  e  t  02:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Follow the usage of reliable sources, like the sole source for the article, an EU website. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So the actual primary source is less reliable than an article about the primary source??? Mooretwin (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose (and would it be an idea to mention the other similar nominations made at the same time: (Special Protection Area, Area of Conservation, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Site of Special Scientific Interest, and Special Area of Conservation?)  DDStretch    (talk)  08:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you oppose it? Mooretwin (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Expansion on my overly brief oppose (brought about by posting notifications to a variety of projects that might have members who could usefully contribute to this): the reasons have been given already by the other editors, such as TimTay, Rodw, Jongleur100, and Ghmyrtle.  DDStretch    (talk)  10:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you ignoring the primary source?! Mooretwin (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose This title has special meaning in the UK where this applies. The term is capitalised by government agencies and in broadsheet newspapers.&mdash; Rod talk 08:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * An oft-repeated mistake is no less of a mistake. See the statute which created the designation. Capitals are not used. Capitals are unnecessary. Mooretwin (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose The term is always capitalised when used by the government agencies that oversee such areas.--TimTay (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * An oft-repeated mistake is no less of a mistake. Mooretwin (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article relates to areas designated by official bodies in the UK, not "areas of special protection" in any wider general sense, and as others have stated the term is capitalised in official use as an indicator that a site has been so designated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The term is not capitalised. Look at the statute that created it! Mooretwin (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - as above, the designation doesn't have capitals - look at the statute. Individuals and agencies using capitals are mistaken - there is no reason for WP to repeat those mistakes. Mooretwin (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - as the nom your !vote of support is already assumed. Please strike this from the !vote sheet. Coldmachine Talk 09:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose: as described above, reliable sources use a capitalised form more commonly; we follow those, not a single act of legislation. Coldmachine Talk 09:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The "single act of legislation" (which is actually two acts - the EU directive, and the corresponding UK legislation which implemented it) - is the origin of the term and does not have capitals! Mooretwin (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose As per Naming conventions (common names), Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. Most sources I have found use the capitalised version, therefore I cannot support the move. ColourSarge (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - [MOSCAPS] might be helpful: Titles such as president, king, or emperor start with a capital letter when used as a title (followed by a name): "President Nixon", not "president Nixon". When used generically, they should be in lower case: "De Gaulle was the French president." ... Similarly, "Louis XVI was the French king" but "Louis XVI was King of France", King of France being a title in that context.
 * Therefore, "Broadland Special Protection Area is in England", but "Broadland is designated as a special protection area". Mooretwin (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - [MOSCAPS again]: When showing the source of an acronym, initialism, or syllabic abbreviation, emphasizing the letters that make up the acronym is undesirable: Incorrect: FOREX (FOReign EXchange), Incorrect: FOREX (foreign exchange), Correct: FOREX (foreign exchange) 
 * Therefore, Incorrect: SPA (Special Protection Area), Correct: SPA (special protection area). Mooretwin (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Of the first group of 10 entries of a Google search of Special Protection Area, only the Wikipedia entry had the initial letters in lower case. Of the second group of 10 entries of the same Google search, only the Scotsman newspaper had the initial letters in lower case - that was in the headline and was changed to upper case in the story. The following 30 entries showed no examples of special protection area (i.e. the initial letters in lower case). I think you could be swimming against the tide on this one Mooretwin. Sorry. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll keep the flag flying for correctness in any case. Mooretwin (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Site of Special Scientific Interest:

Comment Do we have a hint of where this problem originates? Mooretwin said that "no legislation ever uses capitals". I wasn't aware of this, but as far as I can find out it does seem to be the case: for example, this source says "British laws don’t use initial capitals for defined terms". If it is true (for whatever reason), it would explain why SSSI, AONB and the rest do seem to be written with lower case initials in legislation. However, if legal writing uses a particular style, it does not make that style "correct" and all contrary usage "incorrect" – for example, legal writing generally avoids commas, but those are by no means incorrect in other writing. Mooretwin, I think you have misunderstood the significance of the lack of caps in the legislation: all you are doing is trying to impose a particular legal idiosyncracy onto general writing, where it does not belong. Actual usage in general writing is the guide for use here, and that usage is very clearly almost always with cap initials. (That would apply even if the phrase originated in the legislation, which as I've pointed out above, it does not.) It's surely clear enough by now that the whole proposal is an unfruitful one, for SSSIs as for the other examples mentioned. I suggest you retire gracefully at this point. Richard New Forest (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Note to closing editor: There appears to be a violation of WP:CANVASS on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, since the section was started by Mooretwin after the various RMs were proposed by him, and the message is phrased using non-neutral wording and phrasing. I ask Mooretwin to either remove the message or edit it to make it neutral (such as the various messages are that I posted to a variety of projects which the articles would be relevant to by virtue of dealing with UK geographical topics, and/or which have project templates on the corresponding talk pages.)  DDStretch    (talk)  15:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - it's not just any old special protected area (protected for what and by whom?) but an official label, and merits caps. PamD (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Writing it with caps won't tell you what it's protected for, nor by whom. Should all "official labels" be written with caps? Mooretwin (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It gives a strong indication that it's something official, and the article then expands on that. PamD (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Should all "official labels" be written with caps? Mooretwin (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose It is a proper noun referring to a specific legal status. It is not descriptive. Proper nouns are capitalized in English. --Bejnar (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

So it's more than 72 hours since the move was requested (just before 01:00GMT on 12/12) and we have had a lot of comment. The guidance is to wait a "few days" for consensus. Do we now have consensus that the move should not be allowed? --TimTay (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Rampant homosexuals?
Surprisingly, the second paragraph of the article now reads:

"Member States of the European Union (EU) have a duty to safeguard the habitats of rampant homosexuals and certain particularly threatened cross dressers."

Should this be corrected? I don't know the original wording (as that's what I've come to this page to look for). It's fun, but probably not the real reason of existence of SPAs. I would be grateful if SOMEONE could put this right. --213.226.208.43 (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorted. All changes are recorded in the article history, so the old text was in there – luckily the vandalism was the most recent edit so it could simply be reverted.  Richard New Forest (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)