Talk:French Quarter (disambiguation)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:French Quarter which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 22:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's just so weird

Why is it that our readers should know that French Quarter refers to the one in New Orleans and not the generic phenomenon, or the one in Toronto or several other cities. What is it about the NOFQ that makes it so grand that it occupies an ambiguous unmarked space. Very irritating to readers, I'd say. The article needs to be named properly: French Quarter (New Orleans). Tony (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I see your re-education is not yet complete, Tony. I have deleted the tag you so disruptively slapped on this article. There is no bias. We all know, or should know, that "French Quarter" refers as a matter of plain fact to a district of New Orleans. Only if it carries some qualifier like "(Charleston)", "(Toronto)", "(Shanghai)", "(Hanoi)" (and so on) could it conceivably refer to anything else. And above all, we must avoid extra characters on this page, as in the title itself. Get with the paradigm. Noetica^Tea? 10:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Speculative theorizing based on personal experience on the way you think things ought to be done doesn't carry much weight. Both page views and all flavors of internet search indicate that the term "French Quarter" referring to the New Orleans area has achieved a widespread cultural currency, which is one of the bases for determining if a primary topic exists for a wikipedia article title. older ≠ wiser 11:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Bkonrad appears to be on a campaign to have all things American cast as the default on en.WP. Tony (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No, only to avoid having things unnecessarily moved where there is no basis. And FWIW, my bias is not US-centric. I support retaining a primary topic regardless of locale where there is established evidence. older ≠ wiser 12:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I can easily point to things you've done over the past days that robustly shows a US-centric agenda. Tony (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

More speculative theorizing based on limited perspective. older ≠ wiser 13:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that Konrad has a U.S. bias, but I'd still be OK with him if he did. Since most English-speaking Wikipedia users are in the United States, it would follow that the American viewpoint should consider substantial weight. Had you participated in more discussions, Tony, you would notice a U.K. bias in many place names (Plymouth, Cambridge...) Konrad's pageview stats are substantial evidence that indicates that the one in New Orleans is the primary topic; your tagging of this is a huge waste of community time Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hear hear. Tony, consider yourself corrected. If there is a French quarter in New Orleans, it just naturally gets more attention in publishing and on the web, and this makes it the primary topic. It is not necessary to add any qualifier for the primary topic. To do so at this mere DAB page would be to clutter the page, misleading and inconveniencing readers. Let the words "New Orleans" appear nowhere. Noetica^Tea? 20:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Irony is oh so amusing. But thanks for pointing out that the disambiguation page did not give any context for the New Orleans French Quarter. older ≠ wiser 20:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Amusing? How ironic so to put things. I have reverted the mention of New Orleans in the DAB. If the qualifier is not needed in the title for clarity, it is not needed here either. I am serious in calling for a consistent and rational approach to this. Noetica^Tea? 22:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Rational is about the last thing that comes to mind in describing your last edits to this page. older ≠ wiser 22:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing with us a report of your stream of consciousness, ≠. I have called for consistent application of a principle: that we give adequately informative details, and no more. If you find that irrational, that is your private business. You can share also the cogent reasoning that leads you to a conclusion, or you can keep it to yourself as a mere opinion. Let's go no further toward personal attacks. My intent here is serious, and I act in good faith – as we must assume you do, too. Noetica^Tea? 23:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice words, but I don't see that they have any connection with this edit, except perhaps to be WP:POINTy. older ≠ wiser 23:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I can only issue statements and support them, ≠. Your understanding the statements is not my responsibility. If you don't follow something, the remedy is to ask for clarification, not to act precipitately in editing a page. Noetica^Tea? 00:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

When bad edits are justified by apparently irrational statements, I don't see any need to hesitate before correcting matters. older ≠ wiser 00:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I restored the reformatting the page, in line with guidance at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Linking_to_a_primary_topic. Dohn joe (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I will accept, for now, the force of an existing guideline. But I note that it is a guideline only, and not policy. It is therefore to be followed according this wording at its top (with my underlining):

It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.

I reserve the option of treating this as an exceptional case. Consistency is a good thing, supported from first principles in the world at large, and in policy WP:TITLE and style guidelines at WP:MOS. Let there be discussion here toward a specific consensus on the wording of this disambiguation page. This applies both to the need for qualifiers in restricting the reference of "French [Q/q]uarter" to a certain district in New Orleans, and to the necessity or redundancy of that "the". It is confused and confusing that either of these should be considered necessary here, but not in the name for the New Orleans district, as it is given in the actual title.

Noetica^Tea? 23:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

As for the "the" - in my edit summary restoring it, I noted that dab pages frequently begin sentences with "the", when normal English usage requires it. I pointed to Sun (disambiguation) as an example. This is just one of those cases in English where the definite article is required - simple as that. Without it, that sentence sounds like a bad impression of Boris and Natasha from Rocky and Bullwinkle: "French Quarter is in New Orleans. Earth goes around Sun. I hate squirrel."

As for referring to New Orleans in the dab page, that again is in line with normal Wikipedia practice. Where a primary topic has been determined, you describe that article at the beginning of the dab page: "[[Whatever]] is a something that means something. Whatever may also refer to:" Even though French Quarter is the title of the article about the New Orleans district, other people coming to the dab page may not know that. Primary topic does not entail universal awareness.

In short, I'd leave the page (or at least the first sentence) as is, for those reasons. Dohn joe (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that The Oxford English Dictionary says the term refers to a particular one, which is in Louisiana. Accordingly, I think the current solution (at least this perma-linked version) where the article means the one in Louisiana (without a parenthetical) and there is a link to a disambiguation page for other places is the best solution. Greg L (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), Greg. It's the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. A very different thing. The source that you single out from the many that are relevant (see for example my list of sources at the RM) does not use the term "French Quarter", it uses the term "the French Quarter" as its entry. But our article uses "French Quarter" alone. The use of "the" in the present DAB page is contested; consensus has not been established. Therefore it should be removed as an addition until the matter is resolved here. Why the rush?

For the record, OED has no entry for "French [Q/q]uarter", but gives a generic definition at the entry "Quarter, n.":

[13] b. A division or district of a town or city, esp. that occupied by a certain group or community, or having a particular character or use. Sometimes with modifying word, as Chinese, French, Jewish, etc.

Noetica^Tea? 00:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Noetica - what about my arguments? Dohn joe (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dohn. I'm busy now. Be patient. Noetica^Tea? 00:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Many wikipedia articles are placed at titles without a definite article, even when in natural language the article is typically used. There seems nothing remarkable about that. As far as I can tell, the only reason N is making a fuss about it here is because he didn't get his way in the RM. older ≠ wiser 00:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, without commenting on the reasons for his having a jones about it, I agree with you o≠w: there's nothing remarkable about having no parenthetical in the article name for the one in Louisiana. But it is discussions like these that underlie why I engage in Wikipedia as a hobby; I learn things—like how there are other French Quarters. Greg L (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

(expanding upon my previous post): Well, without commenting on the reasons for his having a jones about it, I agree with you o≠w: there's nothing remarkable about having no parenthetical in the article title for the place in Louisiana. It is discussions like these that underlie why I engage in Wikipedia as a hobby; I learn things—like how there are other French Quarters. I rather prefer not having parentheticals in article names if it is the dominant meaning that applies in the vast majority of cases. This user-interface principle is ubiquitous across Wikipedia; if one types “kg”: one goes to an article regarding the unit of mass. But that article features a disambiguation tag so if one means something else, like Knight of the Garter, they can find it. Greg L (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I really am called away now, in the real world. I'll get back to this later. But just quickly: ≠, you are not assuming good faith and you are acting precipitately. Think very carefully before attributing that motivation to me. Do you imagine that the naming of districts of New Orleans is an issue to which I am attached? Don't. I am concerned about the state of current guidelines and policies, and the quality of their interpretation in RMs and elsewhere. As you can see from my record, I am a WP:MOS specialist; I do not focus my attention on mere particulars in the 6,827,601 articles, so much as on guiding principles, anchored in clarity and good sense in the service of readers' needs. I cannot think that omitting "(New Orleans)" from "French Quarter (New Orleans)" helps anyone. (Can you? Really?) Rather, it has all the hallmarks of principles – or their application, or both – gone seriously astray. That general issue of is great concern, and needs raising in a much broader forum than this one. More later.

Noetica^Tea? 00:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I quite honestly don't see that there's anything very unusual about the arrangement. Article titles do not typically include context beyond the name unless disambiguation is needed. And where there is a primary topic, that topic generally has the undisambiguated title. It looks to me like you are trying to fix something that isn't broken. If you actually plan to beat your head against that wall, well that is your choice. older ≠ wiser 01:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question: how will making the title vague help anyone? Tony (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The question is irrelevant. You might as well ask why Soho and not Soho (London) or for that matter, why London and not London, England. older ≠ wiser 11:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been busy with other things, but now have time to answer comments here.

Dohn: Of course I concede that in the normal course of events many noun phrases can appear with or without the definite article at the start, depending on the context. But honestly, when people express a preference for vagueness over pinpoint clarity – where that clarity can be achieved at minimal cost – I wonder whether this is the normal course of events. I accepted the verdict in the RM: issued without a word of explanation, and leaving a phrase that looks plainly generic referring rather to some place that is plainly specific. I gave my thanks at the admin's talkpage, even though I said there that the decision seemed "deeply wrong". So why the concern over this DAB page? Well, if we were talking about London, or Sun, or Australia, or Brooklyn Bridge, there would be no problem. But we are talking about some place in New Orleans that locals, and others in the know, naturally refer to with a generic, descriptive term. I am looking for a way to work for consistency after the bizarre elevation of that local term to the title of a Wikipedia article, and its even more bizarre ratification by strange application of strangely worded provisions (some re-worded not long ago, interestingly). Alas, nothing seems able to achieve that consistency. In logic we learn that from an inconsistency anything can follow. (A contradiction entails every proposition, yes?) Similarly, expect odd-looking consequences after even odder-looking beginnings.

≠: Earlier I wrote this: "I cannot think that omitting '(New Orleans)' from 'French Quarter (New Orleans)' helps anyone. (Can you? Really?)" I see that you have chosen to ignore the question. Later, Tony wrote this: "You haven't answered the question: how will making the title vague help anyone?" You again did not answer, saying only: "The question is irrelevant", before advancing to your own preferred irrelevancies. I am glad to have it on record that you think such questions irrelevant, in deciding on the article titles readers are confronted with. When we lose sight of actual needs, especially the readers' needs, something has gone seriously wrong. This is not the place to remedy that; so I will prefer to waste no more time here. It is not a question of "beating my head" against anything, wall-like and unyielding as people here might make themselves by a narrow vision of what is encyclopedic. I will take this up where it can make a difference, using this as evidence.

Greg: Very many articles work differently from the way you seem to prefer. Consider Collins Street, Melbourne. There are many streets called "Collins Street" in the world, including a few in Australia. Accept for the sake of argument that the one in Melbourne is better known and more written about than any other (true, in fact). Should I attempt to prove in an RM that this Melbourne street is the "primary topic", and have the article moved to Collins Street? (That is currently a disambiguation page.) I see no benefit to anyone in such a move, but if you can, then I suggest you initiate the RM. Go ahead, please. The responses will be interesting, and give further evidence for possible reforms to policies and guidelines. I sincerely hope that you will do that. I will address issues there, be sure of that. But I prefer no more here.

Noetica^Tea? 06:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

And you have chosen to ignore my questions which establish why I think your question is irrelevant. Do you also support titles such as Soho (London) or Paris (France)? If not, then what criteria do you propose to distinguish on primary topic from another? older ≠ wiser 10:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the analogy to Soho and Paris. Those are famous named places; the French quarter, however, is a common generic that has been made into a name in the case of the ones in New Orleans and Charleston, and there is a need to distinguish the generic from the place being referred to. As Noetica pointed out elsewhere, it would help if we did a better job of reserving caps for proper names, that might help, but in this case the precision on mentioning which of many French quarters we mean would still be useful. I still don't see any guideline that argues against it; quote the relevant bit you've been trying to point me at. Dicklyon (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Relative to any other articles that might be ambiguous with the term, the French Quarter is also a famous named place, and although denied by some, with feigned or perhaps actual provincial ignorance, both page view stats and various external searches support this. What criteria do you propose to distinguish between them? What makes some ambiguously named pages where there is a primary topic different from others? older ≠ wiser 22:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The applied practice seems to be to parenthetically disambiguate the article title with a parenthetical providing extra specificity only where it is necessary to do so. Thus, it is Paris, not Paris (France) (which redirects to just “Paris”). It is Earth, not Earth (planet). Googling "French Quarter" definition reinforces the sense that wikipedians responsible for the article on that subject interpret it to be the (a particular one) in Louisiana. Since there are some other “French Quarters” (isn’t there one in Disney World?), I see no need to burden the title with The Parenthetical of Specificity; it suffices fine to just use a disambiguation tag—just like we do for Earth, so if one really means Soil, they can find it faster. This principle of not having The Parenthetical of Specificity for absolutely everything is the reason Wikipedia relies on disambiguation tags at the top of articles. Why is this being made so complex? The two dictionary links on the first page of the Google search, Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary and Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English say the term means the one in LA; ergo, no need for the parenthetical and the proper reliance upon a disambiguation page since there are indeed other “French Quarters” orbiting Sol. Greg L (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not choose to ignore any such question, ≠. You did not ask any such question. You wrote this: "You might as well ask why Soho and not Soho (London) or for that matter, why London and not London, England." If you want a response to that, you only have to let me know. My response: There are some entities that are so well known all over the world that it is not necessary to add specifying information, even though doing so would be fairly harmless. I would have less objection if practice changed in that direction. London, England misleads no one, and might help some readers. The situation with Soho is less clear; but I would make no objection if it were moved to Soho (London). "Soho" is far less fixed in its reference than "London". These are questions of degree, to be settled by gathering evidence empirically, and by discussion based on that evidence. The case of "London" is near one extreme; and the same for "Paris". The case of "French Quarter" I judge well toward the opposite extreme: most people outside New Orleans (or Louisiana, and certainly most people outside the US) do not associate that apparently generic term with a district of New Orleans. That answers your initial imaginary question, and your first actual one.

As for your second actual question, I must assume that you mean "one primary topic from another". But still the question remains obscure and ill-formed. It begins with "if not", which make it awkwardly hypothetical; and it assumes (among other things?) that there must be a primary topic. That is not an assumption made at the guideline WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, nor an assumption that I make.

Having answered your questions, imaginary and real, I note that you still have not answered mine. Hmmm. This dialogue is decidedly unproductive. I suggest that the issues be pursued in current discussion at WT:TITLE, instead of here.

Noetica^Tea? 23:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you're flogging a dead horse here, Noetica. I wish that sort of tenacity and energy could be focused on our terrorist-related articles, where editors with a lot of k's and q's in their names try to make the articles read like “Anwar al-Awlaki was generally regarded as a revered Muslim scholar before being put on a secret kill list by infidels.” Greg L (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It is your prerogative to sidestep the issue, Greg. There are many important issues on the Project. The fact that one is important does not make another unimportant. I am, as I have said, not nearly so interested in districts of New Orleans as I am in matters of principle and practice affecting many thousand of articles. My question and my challenge concerning Collins Street should not be seen as idle or inconsequential. We can deal with the general by tackling the particular. If we are consistent, we would move Collins Street, Melbourne to Collins Street. The principle that underwrites such consistency is important to test; so is the competing principle that would work against that move. But again, if the discussion here is deemed not worth pursuing (as we seem to agree), then let's transfer it to WT:TITLE.

Noetica^Tea? 23:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm just not understanding what the root of the issue is here, Noetica. “Collins Street” keeps being raised on this talk page, which pertains to “French Quarter”. It’s beginning to look to me like Collins Street is a significant factor in this discussion. Far too often on Wikipedia, people have a jones about some issue and then feel constrained to surround their peeve with a veneer of quoting wikipedia policy and Super Hero Of Truth adornments. Is this issue about how Collins Street, Melbourne isn’t being given the due respect you perceive being afforded to “French Quarter,” “Earth,” and “Paris”? What precisely is wrong on Wikipedia and the processes the community uses in deciding which titles ought best be dissed with The Parenthetical of Specificity?

  BTW, I just did some Google searches and, if your problem is over “Collins Street, Melbourne”, I would support removal of the “Melbourne”. I don’t understand the history behind that Collins Street disambiguation page, but all those red links appear to be a contrivance to justify the “Melbourne” specificity. When I search on "Collins Street" Melbourne -Wikipedia, I get 2.75 million hits. When I search on "French Quarter" Lousiana -Wikipedia, I get 8.16 million hits. Thus, there are two facts: “Collins Street” is quite notable in comparison to “French Quarter,” and all those red links on Wikipedia’s diambiguation page show that the other “Collin Streets” are not very notable. I can only imagine that the apparent contrivance I see on the “Collins Street” disambiguation page is the result of some sort of power struggle amongst wikipedians with big egos (this is where someone new jumps in to assail me for lack of AGF and professes great insult and injury for my stating precisely and honestly what I think… waaa). Greg L (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your suspicion is easily dismissed, Greg. I have no interest in changing any article connected with any Collins Street, in Melbourne (the one I know well), the potential but nonexistent article for Piggott, Arkansas, or any other. I am happy to be informed through a disambiguation page that "my" Collins Street is not the only one. It's negligible inconvenience; and who can say? Such information might lead me to a connection in the naming of the street in Piggott and the street in Melbourne. I might even be prompted to write something on that other street. So far it lacks an article (so a hatnote is not available as a solution); but I still want to know it exists. Don't the readers of encyclopedias appreciate such conspectus information, rather than being channeled to something they already know?

You support moving Collins Street, Melbourne to Collins Street? I don't! Yet it is the primary topic, if there is one. It is the most notable referent, as I think I can show. I am not provincially attached to it; and if I were, I would declare that. Please do start that RM. As I suggest above, it would be useful as a test case. I can't start it, because I don't believe in removing such plainly useful information for a worldwide readership of open-minded enquirers.

Noetica^Tea? 00:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Now I am thoroughly confused. I don't know what you are advocating or dislike. I’m not seeing much that is broken, other than Wikipedia has inconsistencies (*sound of heavenly female oratorio over Greg L’s earthshaking observation*). Greg L (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised that you are confused, Greg. I am perfectly happy with the current arrangements for Collins Street, Melbourne and related articles (of which there is just one in existence so far: Collins Street, a disambiguation page). I thought I made that clear. The Melbourne Collins Street is the primary topic, if there is a primary topic; but I do not want it to hog the title "Collins Street". I am not happy with the current arrangements for French Quarter and the cluster of articles that share with it the phrase "French Quarter". This was already abundantly clear. Now, if we apply the same principles consistently to both sets of articles, at least one would have to change. Since you are happy with the cluster sharing "French Quarter", how about you initiating an RM for the other cluster? I am happy with that cluster, myself; so I will not. Such an RM would be very useful, to test ideas about current principles for deciding RMs, and how they are applied. Please do it. I think we both have a preference for rational consistency, in the unbiased naming of articles for the benefit of readers.

I hope that is all settled now. If it is not, please show me exactly where I fail to set things out lucidly.

Noetica^Tea? 01:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A minor point and a perhaps a too subtle distinction (and one that has caused considerable confusion), but Collins Street is not a disambiguation page but a set index article. The main difference is that set index articles are deemed to be "articles", unlike disambiguation pages which are considered to be devices for helping readers navigate ambiguously titled articles. You'll notice that presently, none of the blue links on Collins Street other than the Melbourne street make any mention whatsoever of "Collins Street". A well-formed disambiguation page would require the blue links to include some significant information about the term (ideally with verifiable references). Similarly, a well-formed set index article would contain verifiable references for any information presented in the article. As is, Collins Street is merely an unreferenced list article. older ≠ wiser 02:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• OK. Now I understand, Noetica. And…

  I’m sorry, but I see no need to solve problems with inconsistencies (which abound on Wikipedia) by changing “French Quarter” to “French Quarter, Louisiana.” There is but one “French Quarter" for the vast majority of typed inquiries, just as “Earth” usually means the planet and seldom refers to soil (thus “Earth (planet)” merely redirects to “Earth”, as it ought to).

  I have no big problem with “Collins Street, Melbourne” but think that there is generally just one in mind for the vast majority of typed searches so the “Melbourne” is unnecessary specificity. The disambiguation page (or “index article”) for “Collins Street” only drives home the fact that there is but one “Collins Street” for probably 99.5% of our visitors.

  Wikipedia is best when text does not draw undo attention to itself and reads fluidly. And that, as it applies to article titles, springs by abiding to common sense interpretations of common usage of the Wikipedia product. Trying to apply military-style rigor to procedures on something as varied as Wikipedia (Writings>Debate>Wikipedia>WP-space>Article talk page>French Quarter-disambiguation>02:41, 10 October 2011 Post by Greg L MIL-T-28800E) makes programmer-types happy, but unduly calls attention to itself when it is unnecessary because it reads awkwardly. Greg L (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

French Quarter/French quarter

Charleston has a "French Quarter", but Hanoi has a "French quarter"? What is the basis for this distinction? For today's Vietnamese, the section of Hanoi is just Quận Ba Đình and they don't know anything about a French Quarter. But the travel industry promotes it: "Much of the appeal of Hanoi's French Quarter is in its colonial architecture" (Lonely Planet, 2007). "In a central location in Hanoi's French Quarter stands the handsome and well-patronized Quan Su Pagoda" (Hanoi: biography of a city, 2000). This agent offers tours of "The French Quarter of Hanoi". (Nice pictures. Somehow they managed to make this urban district look like a countryside estate.) Here is a story from VNA, the official news agency: "French Quarter in Hanoi to be preserved". Kauffner (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization is to be expected from people promoting things. WP style is to only capitalize when it's a proper name; the occurrence in books as lower case suggests that it is not (see this one for example). Probably the one in Charleston shouldn't be either, but like the one in New Orleans, it has been promoted so much that it is usually treated as a name in recent decades. The trend is apparent in n-grams. Dicklyon (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI

 – User:JCScaliger has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Pmanderson (blocked for another year for abusive sockpuppetry).

Both New Orleans and Hanoi have quarters or sections which were once French; in running prose they are called "French quarter." In headlines this becomes "French Quarter", but in New Orleans, this has also become the proper name of the section. This search finds many instances from the early 20th century; although the convention of a name was not fully formed until the Second World War. JCScaliger (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You assert "has also become the proper name of the section" and "the convention of a name was not fully formed until the Second World War". What's the basis? It looks to me like the percentage capitalization has been changing gradually, as with many other terms that gradually take on caps in many styles; during the 1950s it was going the other direction [1]. Dicklyon (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Only the most obvious features of ngrams - those which no plausible error could have created - should be trusted; the chart behind the link is smoothed, and is the result of an error-prone scan in the first place. Many of the hits on French quarter are actually using French Quarter - there are very few the other way around.

But Dicklyon is not only relying on untrustworthy fine detail, he misreads what it does show. During the 1950s, it shows the use of both forms declining, as a total percentage of English books. There is no relative decline; English speakers are finding other things to talk about. JCScaliger (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)