Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 314: Line 314:
*'''Strong Keep''', and this should probably be a full RfC for such a major change. That language has been MOS language for a long time (not sure how long, but I've often used it in discussions), and changing it seems a site-wide topic. There are about half a dozen never-cappers who will discuss it, and hopefully much of the discussion will be on those very commonsense-filled words about the most familiar name in English. As for Cinderella157's assumptions about me, well, what I actually think is that important or not, things which are individual things, and so named as individual things, should be uppercased. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 18:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''', and this should probably be a full RfC for such a major change. That language has been MOS language for a long time (not sure how long, but I've often used it in discussions), and changing it seems a site-wide topic. There are about half a dozen never-cappers who will discuss it, and hopefully much of the discussion will be on those very commonsense-filled words about the most familiar name in English. As for Cinderella157's assumptions about me, well, what I actually think is that important or not, things which are individual things, and so named as individual things, should be uppercased. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 18:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
*:By "never cappers" I assume you mean me and others who abide by the top-line message at [[MOS:CAPS]]: "only words and phrases that are {{em|consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources}} are capitalized in Wikipedia." I think "never cappers" is an unfair and biased way to refer to people who respect this longstanding consensus to not cap things not consistently capped in sources, a position that is only confused by the introduction of this alternative subjective criterion of "most familiar to readers". [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 02:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
*:By "never cappers" I assume you mean me and others who abide by the top-line message at [[MOS:CAPS]]: "only words and phrases that are {{em|consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources}} are capitalized in Wikipedia." I think "never cappers" is an unfair and biased way to refer to people who respect this longstanding consensus to not cap things not consistently capped in sources, a position that is only confused by the introduction of this alternative subjective criterion of "most familiar to readers". [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 02:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

::Randy, isn't that paragraph telling us (paraphrasing): if something has more than one proper name, we uses the [proper] name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English? Isn't that very advice covered at [[WP:COMMONNAME]] and to some further degree at [[WP:UE]] and [[WP:USEENGLISH]]? How is the paragraph in question, when read in full, relevant to this particular page? Anybody can start an RfC if they wish. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 01:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Do it up, the way you all think is best. I'm just no longer interested in debating Manuals of Style, these days. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 04:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Do it up, the way you all think is best. I'm just no longer interested in debating Manuals of Style, these days. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 04:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' - This does sound like an end-around by the never-cappers. This would be a huge deal that would require a full RfC. [[User:Fyunck(click)|Fyunck(click)]] ([[User talk:Fyunck(click)|talk]]) 04:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' - This does sound like an end-around by the never-cappers. This would be a huge deal that would require a full RfC. [[User:Fyunck(click)|Fyunck(click)]] ([[User talk:Fyunck(click)|talk]]) 04:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:27, 21 July 2022

Shortcut
WikiProject iconManual of Style
WikiProject iconThis page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles
Note icon
This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate.
Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
Note icon
For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Capitalization discussions ongoing (keep at top of talk page)

Add new items at top of list; move to Concluded when decided, and summarize the conclusion. Comment at them if interested. Please keep this section at the top of the page.

Current

(newest on top)

Concluded

Extended content

Dance names advice requested

It seems clear from MOS:DANCECAPS that dance names are to be lowercased, but I want to double check before moving pages. There are a lot of dances at uppercase titles and that are uppercased in article text. (e.g. all of the ones in Template:Dance in India, some of Category:Dances of Japan, and the non-English words in List of Indonesian dances.) I have linked this from talk pages of WP:NCCAPS, WP:DANCE and a couple of others. Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  16:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you for prechecking the consensus before making a bunch of changes. The Manual of Style is clear that except for proper names these should be lower case, but excessive capitalization is common in games, food, martial arts, dance, and lots of other places. I've corrected many as I've run into them and only occasionally has there been any push back. Thanks for doing the work. SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and thanks for getting on this, AjaxSmack. I've spent quite a lot of time lower-casing the same sort of things in such articles, and I know Dicklyon has, too (mainly in sports), but it gets tedious after a while. I downcased a bunch of dance stuff, in which almost every dance-related term was over-capitalized, but after dozens of such articles I had to walk away and do something else.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say be careful not to over-generalize. Checking a few of the Japanese dances, I found that Yosakoi is pretty much "consistently capitalized" in books and news, but others I checked are not. When they're clearly not meeting that criterion, consensus is clear that they should be lowercase. You could argue that Yosakoi is capped mainly when part of proper names (such as Yosakoi Festival, Yosakoi Dance Project, Shimin Kensho Yosakoi Dance Team, Yosakoi Naruko Dance), and that several English-language Japanese sites use it lowercase ([1], [2]), but you'd likely need an RM discussion to find consensus. I haven't looked at the Indonesian ones. Just make sure you can justify your changes in case someone objects with the claim that "it's a proper name". Dicklyon (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re sports, that was a big area for me in the last 6 months, after I discovered the huge degree of over-capitalization there (mostly in tennis, but it lots of others, too). Except for strong pushback from two editors in tennis who were on the wrong side of consensus, it went smoothly, with no pushback. There's still a lot more to fix; e.g. NFL Draft and NHL Draft are most often seen with lowercase "draft", but the football and hockey fans are strong fans of caps and would make it a too-hard argument to win. Dicklyon (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
​​​Thanks for the input here. I'm not a strong proponent of lowercasing in general (and might disagree with some of you about e.g. battle or treaty names) and I abhor sources, reliable or not, that undercapitalise (e.g. The Economist's second world war), but the dance names (and sports terms) are so widely considered common names that Wikipedia should have the prerogative to lowercase them en masse as a simple style-manual issue. —  AjaxSmack  14:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Another I've been working on is "The Siege of X" where sources say "The siege of X". A few proper names exist, typically as the "Great Siege of X", but even in articles I've fixed, randoms re-cap it now and then. I'll do more of those soon. Dicklyon (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned "the Twist" or "the Mashed Potato" being a "name for a specific dance", but a better term would be that it is "a name for a type of dance". Use bananas and grammar here to form an analogy: "Pens are for writing." – generic; "I have a pen on my desk." – specific but indefinite; "The pen on my desk doesn't write." – specific and definite. Whether generic or specific or definite or indefinite, pen remains an uncapitalized common noun. I can replace "pen" with a type of pen (e.g. ballpoint pen, quill, fudepen), and the three sentences would remain viable. The same with types of dances (e.g. Dancing is good exercise; Our activity last night was dancing; My dancing last night was horrible → The twist is good exercise; Our activity last night was the twist; My twist last night was horrible — a bit awkward but the best you'll get from me.). Other similar examples would be code vis-à-vis braille and location identifier or singing vis-à-vis beatboxing and chiaroscuro. On the other hand, you could not make sentences like these with proper names like Wikipedia or Tsar Nicholas II. So in short, being a type of something or being specific does not make it proper.
The intro of Wikipedia's proper name article might help with affirming what a proper name is: uniqueness is a factor as is the idea of being a single entity. There is not one unique twist or mashed potato. Both have been danced millions of times. But these issues are not always clear cut especially when related to capitalization—there have been innumerable Mays and autumnns—which is why I solicited input (nb issues raised at Talk:Proper noun and WT:NCCAPS, and see WP:BIRDCON as an example of an extensive discussion on a single category). —  AjaxSmack  03:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can endorse that summary.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly endorse the style approach, in any event. There are all manner of caveats to both the empirical and abstract arguments as to which nouns obey which conventions; afterall, if we look to the relationship between the noun and the subject it refers to in any given instance the name "Ted" is about as unique as regards any particular Ted as the common noun "pen" is to any individual pen. But as Ajax correctly and appropriately notes before-hand, it's really not any brightline rule reflecting a rational divide which shapes conventions in this regard, nor is it debate about the same that should be foremost focused upon in our style guidance. Rather (particularly for something like this that defies completely logically adherence to fundamental and expressly consistent rules on the most granular level), we simply map our style guidance to common English usage. While this is a somewhat more nuanced case than some calls (if only because of much historical debate and flux in terms of spelling/stylization conventions on the basis of one descriptive linguistic argument or another), it's clear that the existing MoS consensus on the over-arching topic here is to follow the general rules of most modern style guides--that is to say, the one Ajax has correctly advanced above. SnowRise let's rap 05:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalize Marine when referring to an individual servicemember

Per the the US Department of Defence's Military Community & Family Policy (MCFP) style guide, Marine, when referring to a servicemember is a proper noun and is capitalized. I cannot find anything to support this when referring to members of the British Royal Marines or ROK Marines. I propose we update the WP Manual of Style to reflect the proper grammar for the American variant of the naval infantry. See here. It's me...Sallicio! 04:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two things wrong with this suggestion. One is that you're mischaracterizing what that style guide says. It does not say that "Marine" is a proper noun. The term "proper noun" is not used at all in that document, as far as I can see. And "marine" is clearly not a proper noun in the linguistic sense. The second is that you are presuming that Wikipedia should do whatever the US DoD says should be done in its own publications. The DoD style guide simply does not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a DoD publication. In fact, that style guide even explicitly says that some of what it says is different from what some other style guides say (e.g. the AP Stylebook). Why should we consider its guidance to be desirable to follow? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your first point, but nevertheless it says it should be capitalized. To your second point, what you say is what's called a "red herring fallacy". Your argument that WP should not follow the DoD guide is because WP is not a DoD publication. That's true; however, WP is not a publication/subsidiary of APA, MLA, or any other guideline standard organization. Yet, WP follows them in their areas of specialty. It is an accepted practice, WP should follow suit. It's me...Sallicio! 14:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. This is purely a conceit. The armed forces capitalise lots of things that nobody else does. It is not a proper noun, it is not normal English and as BarrelProof says we are not obliged to follow internal style guides. We long ago decided not to capitalise ranks (as we originally used to) unless they were immediately in front of someone's name, another thing that the forces commonly do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand why you would think that, as I have found no reference of British English capitalizing its servicemembers of the Royal Marines. But it is not purely conceit. For one, in American English, it is common practice to capitalize the servicemember. Even in the British-based encyclopedia Britannica, "Marine" as a US servicemember is capitalized. Secondly, it serves linguistic utility. The capitalization differentiates between generally aquatic-based to that of the naval infantry service (which itself is already established as a proper noun) or servicemembers. It's me...Sallicio! 14:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aside: Encyclopædia Britannica is a now a US-based publication and has been for some time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the British Armed Forces frequently capitalise anything and everything, including Marine (which in the Royal Marines is the private-equivalent rank as well as a generic term for a member of the corps (or the Corps, as they would write it!)). But that too is a conceit. Wikipedia is written in standard English, not service English, whether British or American. It serves no useful purpose whatsoever to capitalise anything except proper names. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I'm editing and see the word marine I imagine how it would be capitalized if instead it was either Army, similar to Marine Corps, or soldier, similar to marine, a person. Like soldier, sailor, airman, etc. Wikipedia style is to use lower case because those are not proper nouns. That differs from many military sources which capitalize all of those. SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: everyone would write the Corps with a capital C because it is in reference to the Royal Marine Corps (a proper noun, just like the Royal Navy, Royal Army or US Navy, etc). @SchreiberBike: no military source capitalizes soldier, sailor, or airman; however, they do capitalize Marine, per the DoD manual of style. The servicemembers of the Marines are the only ones to take on the name of their respective service. It's me...Sallicio! 20:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"no military source capitalizes soldier"
This took five seconds to Google. SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I was in a hurry and was rude. What I should have said is that I think you are mistaken and a search of .mil websites shows frequent capitalization of soldier, sailor and airman in the middle of sentences. Try a Google search like "soldier site:.mil" and you will see. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Corps of Royal Marines. You see, this is just a variation in style. It is not uncommon to capitalise part of a name when only part of a name is used. But it is unnecessary and generally we don't do it on Wikipedia. So, no, "everyone" wouldn't do it. Once again, it's a bit of a conceit that organisations like and often insist on in their internal style guides because it makes them feel important. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If cases vary and it Marines is usual, then capitalise it. The question is a specific one about capitalising Marine, not ‘general’ about other namings. A statement as to what’s ‘general’ in names also leaves one knowing cases vary so winds up ‘maybe’. If there is no WP rationale of distinction between cases, and there are organisation style guides and actual WEIGHT of usage that capitalises Marine, then that argues for capitalisation in the case of Marines. Whether the practice is from conceit or not does not affect whether that is the common usage. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the opening paragraph of the project page which starts with "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization". Wikipedia long ago chose a style which capitalizes less than some sources and especially avoids Capitalization Because Organizations Like to Capitalize Things Which They Think Are Important. There's no reason this should be an exception. Simply, words like marine, nurse, king or third floor day janitor are not proper nouns. SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting guidance on usage of caps in the article title

Greetings,

During a DYK discussion some doubts were expressed about usage of Caps in the following article. I brought here so DYK discussion can continue to focus at the main DYK issues.

English is not my native language. Whatever is appropriate title writing style is okay for me. Please do guide.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"National Women's Day" seems to be almost always capped in sources. The other not; 1983 women's march, Lahore seems like an appropriate descriptive title. Dicklyon (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait… Dicklyon is deferring to source usage? Good gods! 😉 Blueboar (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I get shit when I use source stats, and shit when I don't. Such is life WP. Dicklyon (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalising game terms in trademarked games

MOS:GAMECAPS [3] states that trademarked sports and games are capitalized, untrademarked games are usually not, and then that "venue types, sports equipment, game pieces, rules, moves, techniques, jargon, and other terms relating to sports, games, and activities are given in lower case and without special stylization". All the examples of game pieces, moves, etc., are from nontrademarked games. Meanwhile, Good and Featured articles about trademarked games capitalise rules and terms - for instance, Dungeons and Dragons does so for ability scores,[4] and Magic: The Gathering does so for card names[5] and the colors.

I think the implication is that terms with specific uses in trademarked games should also be capitalised, so victory point, player character, or wound would not be, but Dungeon Master and so on should be. Is this right? If so, how should the rules be updated to clarify this? Maybe something like adding the sentence "Likewise, venue types, sports equipment, game pieces, rules, moves, techniques, jargon, and other terms relating to trademarked sports, games, and activities are capitalized if they are specific to that activity: ability scores in Dungeons and Dragons, card names in Magic: The Gathering, etc. Generic terms such as hit point, victory point, or player character are not capitalized." and specifying that the existing guidance is for non-trademarked games. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, a related recent discussion can be found at Talk:Pokémon Legends: Arceus#RfC: Should Pokémon types be capitalized in sentences?. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, thanks. It looks like the inconsistent sources were the key point there. How about this to clarify: "Likewise, venue types, sports equipment, game pieces, rules, moves, techniques, jargon, and other terms relating to trademarked sports, games, and activities are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in the context of this activity: ability scores in Dungeons and Dragons, card names in Magic: The Gathering, etc. However, generic terms such as hit point, victory point, or player character are not capitalized." (changes bolded) CohenTheBohemian (talk) 03:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Compass points

The manual says: "Finer compass points take a hyphen after the first word, regardless, and never use a space". This may be true for the tertiary points (NNE for example) but is not true for the finest points such as north by east. Should the manual be changed to read:

Tertiary compass points take a hyphen after the first word, regardless, and never use a space: south-southeast or south-south-east, but not south-south east, south southeast. 'Points' have their last elements spaced: north by east or northwest by west.

Another related point was raised back in 2013 but neither discussed nor implemented: "should we mention that the abbreviations for compass points are capitalized?" See Archive 9 Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin of Sheffield, I have looked at the last sentence of the section and see: while in British English they are sometimes written as separate words or hyphenated. I would observe that "sometimes" negates this being an ENGVAR issue and it is perfectly reasonable for WP to prefer the concatenated form (should be used) ie southwest and consequently south-southwest. This would greatly simplify the guidance. Though, when this refers to a specific geopolitical region (eg South East England), we would defer to the form most WP:COMMONNAME in independent sources. My thoughts. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ENGVAR issue. The Commonwealth Style Guide says: In text, write the points of a compass in lower case. Use hyphens for points such as ‘north-east’. [6] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hawkeye7, I did a search for northeast and north-east limiting the region to Australia. Yes, the result favours "north-east" and the split is about 80-20 but results for the hyphenated form also include a significant number of hits for the unhypenated spaced form (ie "north east" - contrary to the Commonwealth Style Guide). I also did this search at bom.gov.au and this search at navy.gov.au. If anybody is following the Commonwealth Government style guide, it would be the government - but they aren't. I think my initial observation was reasonable. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though that doesn't address the issue of the tertiary points. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean the quaternary points (north by northwest)? Do we need to address these? If so, just give an example rather than trying to explain it in words. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yes. As I said in the first paragraph the existing text is wrong: "Finer compass points take a hyphen after the first word, regardless, and never use a space" when in fact this only applies to the tertiary points and not the quaternary points, hence my suggested edit. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proper names

It is my recollection that the section "Proper names" was merged into MOS:CAPS from a WP page of the same name not all that long ago. Regardless of the semantics, it is a common WP practice to refer to words and phrases that are consistently capitalised as proper nouns|names as defined in the lead of MOS:CAPS. I would observe that the section heading may (and has) been construed to create an exception to the lead definition/criteria. I would therefore propose removing this section from MOS:CAPS but retaining the sub-sections therein and have boldly done so per this edit. I would move the associated shortcuts to the lead but I have not done this yet. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I've undone your edit. It's hard to see this as anything other than an attempt to get around points made at requested moves/move reviews, like the one we're both currently participating in. -- Vaulter 15:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, the bit about proper names has been on this page in some form since at least 2016 (I didn't bother going further back than 500 revisions) [7]. And the merger you referenced occurred in 2018 [8]. -- Vaulter 15:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized. And how do we (WP) determine what is a proper name? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, by understanding Proper noun and the discussion of capitalization there. Peter coxhead (talk)
Pro-capitalization editors like to pretend as if there were some ironclad rule distinguishing proper nouns from commons and dictating which should be capitalized. That’s not the case as the Proper noun article itself observes: Although these rules have been standardized, there are enough gray areas that it can often be unclear both whether an item qualifies as a proper name and whether it should be capitalized: "the Cuban missile crisis" is often capitalized ("Cuban Missile Crisis") and often not, regardless of its syntactic status or its function in discourse. Most style guides give decisive recommendations on capitalization, but not all of them go into detail on how to decide in these gray areas if words are proper nouns or not and should be capitalized or not.
The point is that the distinction is often arbitrary, and “but that’s a proper noun!” isn’t an argument against an MOS rule that says a particular category of phrase (e.g., MOS:JOBTITLES) is treated as a common noun. Wallnot (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The subsection doesn't really fit into MOS:CAPS. We could very reasonably mention how to determine if something is a proper noun, but the subsection doesn't do that, and instead mostly focuses on what name to use for things, which is not a CAPS issue. I support removal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About two years ago, the pro-lower case editors began pushing & getting consensus on quite a few topics. At some point, there has to be a line that shouldn't be crossed. We can't lower case everything. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The line is what a substantial majority of reliable secondary sources capitalize, as the guideline itself says. Wallnot (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt, eventually attempts will be made to lower-case entirely, article titles. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be silly, and wouldn't stand a chance. I've been accused of wanting to stamp out all capitalization, but actually I only favor removing capitalization that's inconsistent with our P&G. I think sentence case (initial cap) is fine for titles, and of course caps are "required" where sources cap consistently. Dicklyon (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Give it time. A wave can get out of control. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this push to reduce excess capitalization didn't start 2 years ago. I've been at it for nearly 15 years, I think, and in the great majority of cases I get more thanks than pushback. Today I got this nice note. Dicklyon (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I only hope you're correct, that there'll continue to be some limits. GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to remember that whether something is a proper name or not and whether something should be capitalized or not are two different questions. These concepts are often conflated. Proper names are capitalized, but the mere fact of being consistently capitalized does not mean that something is a proper name. For example, brand names (e.g., "Chevrolet") and product names (e.g., "Camaro") are not proper names, but they are capitalized. Adjectives derived from the names of places (e.g., "Roman") are not proper names, but they are capitalized. Please see my accompanying edit about this. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The borderline between what is and is not a proper name/capitalized is wavy and frayed. Chevrolet is a division of a company and named after Louis Chevrolet. Camaro is a designation for a series of designs and convention has decided that we capitalize those, though I can imagine that could have gone another way. Proper adjectives like Roman are a thing and in English are capitalized. The edit referenced above added "brand names"; that seems unnecessary as brands are already proper nouns. I think it would be better if ", such as proper names, demonyms and brand names" were removed as "terms that would ordinarily be capitalized in running prose" is sufficient. I don't agree that proper name and capitalization are two different questions, but I agree that it's hard to come up with a clear definition of proper noun that always works and everyone agrees on. On Wikipedia we've come up with the compromise: "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia". That doesn't always come out the way I think it should, but it's an effective compromise. SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia" is the most meaningful interpretation/compromise for WP purposes. I know some editors, such as CinderellaNNN, like to get all theoretical about what's a proper name and what's not, but I value data over theory. I agree with them on removing that odd paragraph. Dicklyon (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to disagree on that language. This may call into question Wikipedia's common sense approach to astronomical names, such as Sun, Moon, Solar System, Earth, etc., which are not consistently capitalized in sources but are logically capitalized on Wikipedia. Would this override consensus on the beforementioned Cuban Missile Crisis? Language should reflect that there are exceptions. And an interesting question at Kill Bill, is the character The Bride lowercased "the" or uppercased "The" in running text? Would the proposed language here take precedence in character proper names such as this? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's funny that what to you is "logically" done on WP is the opposite of what many style guides specifically say (e.g. NASA's). To me, terms like Universe, Solar System, etc. (also Cuban Missile Crisis) seem inappropriately over-capitalized on WP compared to how they are treated in our reliable sources. Dicklyon (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And so it goes, and maybe why you are trying to put this new language into the MOS to achieve these ends. Universe isn't included in caps, but Solar System and, how do you put it? etc.? (Sun, Moon, Earth), and you toss in the Cuban Missile Crisis, would be overturned by this new language, well, that's an overreach of well-established Wikipedia norms on Sun, Moon, Earth, and Solar System. Please explain, in 6 million words or less, how Sun, Earth, and Moon are not proper names? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NASA says that when you put "the" in front of "sun" or "moon" it's not a proper name. Maybe that's too strict. The big problem with those is that they're supposed to be considered proper names in astronomical contexts, but not when you say "the sun rose" or "the moon is full tonight", which are about our perceptions of them on the ground; yet all too often editors claim those are astronomical contexts and cap them. Universe and solar system are not generally capped per NASA, but are per lots of WP editors. And Cuban missile crisis is way more often lowercase in sources until recent years, when it's likely influenced by WP's over-capitalization, where it's been capped since this undiscussed over-capping edit of 2003 that came with this counter-factual explanation; before my time. Still, is not yet approaching "consistently capitalized" in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course uppercase doesn't apply to perceptions (the sun rose), that's not the point here. The proper name of actual physical objects is where Wikipedia has it right and many sources inexplicably have it wrong (Scientific American for one). The nuclear furnace in the sky that fuels all life, Wikipedia says that it has a proper name. And the large rocky body circling the Earth (or would you argue that it is lowercased 'earth', and, if so, does not a planet itself deserve a proper name?), maybe that should have a proper name? Wikipedia gives it one, others don't. If you argue that Wikipedia should lowercase 'sun' as the star's proper name, or lowercase Solar System when referring to the specific solar system of Earth's nearest star, then there is something basically wrong with strict MOS language that would codify that viewpoint. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought the other way around – that "the Sun" is a proper name (when referring to the sun that is in our solar system), while "a sun" (among many suns) is a common noun. I'm tempted to say that NASA is an organization of scientists, bureaucrats and engineers – not linguists, but that would be a rude thing to say, so I will not say it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Brand names are not proper names (in general). A proper name refers to a single entity, but there can be many Cadillacs in a single parking lot, and Charmin, Palmolive, NyQuil, OxiClean and Oil of Olay are not even countable things, much less unique referents. Chevrolet may be a proper name when referring to a particular person or a division of a company, but not when referring to a type of automobile. Types of things and categories of things are common nouns, not proper nouns. Linguistically speaking, brand names are not proper names. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently that odd paragraph that Cinderella removed came in via a "merge" from a page that was "redundant, poorly maintained, and rarely cited", in this edit of 1 November 2018. It's time to "maintain" it into something more sensible and less conflicting, or remove it. There's no need to talk about conflict here, and no need for an alternate obscure buried subjective criterion to what we've always had in WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The present language seems fine, and at least the language should keep the concept of "most familiar name in English" in some form, as often most recognizable will not be consistently applied in sources but will be used by many sources in a recognizable way. No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater here, as your approach to the commonsense use of uppercase that Wikipedia uses for some proper names (Sun, Moon, Solar System, etc.) is concerning and is at least kept in check by language such as already present here. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Dicklyon, you imply that this change removing "most familiar name" would enable a relook at the casing of Cuban Missile Crisis? This n-gram showing uppercasing by far the most familiar name for Cuban Missile Crisis would be tossed aside because it is not "consistent"? Keeping "most familiar name" in the language seems imperative when things like this arise. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Most familiar" is just something to argue about. But if that's what was argued to keep Cuban Missile Crisis capped in spite of evidence that sources mostly don't, then maybe. I don't see how "Cuban missile crisis" can be seen as less familiar than "Cuban Missile Crisis"; it reads the same. Here is a better look at the 21st century trend to slightly more capitalization, much of which is actually in titles and citations, not in sentences; in sentences, which is what we care about, it's always less capping than what the ngram stats show (as you well know). It was unilaterally capped in 2003; we had a consensus to move to lowercase in 2012, and to move back up in 2015; so, sure time to look again maybe. Dicklyon (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify: Are some of you suggesting that the page title Cuban Missile Crisis, be changed to Cuban missile crisis? GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's an example of what excessive adherence to the word "consistently" would bring. N-grams show by far that the most familiar casing for Cuban Missile Crisis is uppercasing, but, since it's not 100% consistent Dicklyon would want to downcase it. The 2015 RM handled that, and no, "looking" at it again would not change the result (at a minimum it would be decided as no consensus and retain the status quo) but would only cost editors much time, slings and arrows, and whirlygigs of effort to play an old game which is still controversary played too much on Wikipedia. Removing language from this page which assures that the most familiar name in English deserves a role in deciding proper names will likely spill over into many areas to address or ignore past decisions such as Cuban Missile Crisis. Nothing is broken, so leaving the language on this page seems the best choice. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of 100%; it's not even a majority of sources that cap Cuban Missile Crisis. The caps numbers crept up mainly from the many citations to titles with Cuban Missile Crisis, but still not to even two-thirds. Nothing close to "consistently". That's broken, but I realize a lot of editors prefer it that way, and it's a silly distraction to the issue here (it's the example from Proper noun#Modern English capitalization of proper nouns, and a topic that Randy and I have had spirited discussions on in the past, which is why he's provoking me about it). The language about familiarity is taken care of already by COMMONNAME (which is not about styling, just names). Here's a clearer view of usage stats, limited to probably a sentence context. Even if the very recent blip was real, it wouldn't suddenly have made the capped form more recognizable, and wouldn't explain why editors decided to cap it in 2003 and 2015. Dicklyon (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's interesting is the number of references that predate the crisis itself. What, I wonder, was the Cuban Missile Crisis being talked about in 1800? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really so interesting; they are very few, and such things are generally attributable to metadata errors, possibly from OCR errors, and/or from the smoothing; see hits through 1960. Dicklyon (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This thread would appear to be misconstruing the reasonable meaning and intent of the phrase "most familiar" in the fuller context of what is actually written.
In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized. Such names are frequently a source of conflict, especially when different cultures, using different names, "claim" someone or something as their own. Wikipedia does not adjudicate such disputes, but as a general rule uses the name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English. Alternative names are often given in parentheses for greater clarity and fuller information. (emphasis added)
The text, read in its proper and full context is dealing with alternative names such as Mumbai and Bombay. It is clearly not dealing with differences in capitalisation such as Cuban missile crisis or Cuban Missile Crisis which are the same name but with different capitalisation. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the first sentence of the paragraph. It, hence the paragraph, deals directly with the capitalization of proper names, which would include 'Cuban Missile Crisis'. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's the point—asserting without evidence that Cuban missile crisis is a proper name doesn't make it so, with or without the sentence you point to. Wallnot (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized. Such [proper] names are frequently a source of conflict, especially when different cultures, using different [proper] names, "claim" someone or something as their own. Wikipedia does not adjudicate such disputes, but as a general rule uses the [proper] name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English. Alternative [proper] names are often given in parentheses for greater clarity and fuller information. The first sentence and the start of the second (Such names) establish that in the rest of the paragraph name is referring to a proper name (ie we are using a shortened form of the fuller noun phrase proper name). The first sentence acknowledges we capitalise proper names but does not intrinsically tell us anything else about proper names. In full, the paragraph is dealing with alternative proper names such as Mumbai and Bombay and not with whether something is or isn't a proper name - ie we must first determine if we are dealing with a proper name. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be honest about this. It's gonna come down to an article-by-article basis. One RM at a time. No blanket rule. GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or is it that our blanket rule is "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized"? To follow that rule requires data collection and human judgement, so it's a rule that requires discussion on an "article-by-article basis". SchreiberBike | ⌨  13:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OP comment: This discussion has substantially diverged from the substantive question. Peter coxhead would suggest we (WP) determine what is a proper name by understanding Proper noun and the discussion of capitalization there. Reading proper noun, it tells us that proper names are not descriptive of the referent, they cannot normally be modified by articles or another determiner (except perhaps the) and, while they have a specific referent, this is not a defining property since the definite article (the) used with a common name also has a specific referent. Reading and understanding proper noun would cause us to downcase the titles of many articles. The proper name article then becomes a bit inconsistent and acknowledges the grey areas which are the crux of most capitalisation discussions. It is of little help in resolving these.

Per SchreiberBike, we rely on the guidance of the lead to determine what is "conventionally capitalised" - and thereby resolve these grey areas. Randy Kryn would opine that important things deserve a proper name. This is an argument of capitalisation for emphasis, distinction or significance and we have specific advice at MOS:SIGNIFCAPS not to do this. Sorry Randy :)

Regardless though, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proper names does not implore us to use and understand proper noun to determine what is or isn't a proper name. Rather, it speaks to determining the most appropriate name when there are alternative proper names. We have WP:COMMONNAME for this. There is then a question of whether demonyms (section on Peoples and their languages) really belongs as a subsection since proper name would clearly state that demonyms are not proper nouns|names (even if they are capitalised).

Substantive question: the substantive question is whether we should delete the section heading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proper names (and the paragraph immediately following) or not. If we did, the subsections therein would then move up a level. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, delete that paragraph that crept in from a merge of an unmaintained page. It just sows confusion. Dicklyon (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, and this should probably be a full RfC for such a major change. That language has been MOS language for a long time (not sure how long, but I've often used it in discussions), and changing it seems a site-wide topic. There are about half a dozen never-cappers who will discuss it, and hopefully much of the discussion will be on those very commonsense-filled words about the most familiar name in English. As for Cinderella157's assumptions about me, well, what I actually think is that important or not, things which are individual things, and so named as individual things, should be uppercased. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    By "never cappers" I assume you mean me and others who abide by the top-line message at MOS:CAPS: "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." I think "never cappers" is an unfair and biased way to refer to people who respect this longstanding consensus to not cap things not consistently capped in sources, a position that is only confused by the introduction of this alternative subjective criterion of "most familiar to readers". Dicklyon (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Randy, isn't that paragraph telling us (paraphrasing): if something has more than one proper name, we uses the [proper] name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English? Isn't that very advice covered at WP:COMMONNAME and to some further degree at WP:UE and WP:USEENGLISH? How is the paragraph in question, when read in full, relevant to this particular page? Anybody can start an RfC if they wish. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do it up, the way you all think is best. I'm just no longer interested in debating Manuals of Style, these days. GoodDay (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First word when header begins with a number

In school, I was taught that the first word gets capitalized even if there are numbers prior to it. Chemistry style guides (including on enwiki) are clear that initial numerals, foreign characters, and other symbols are ignored for purposes of capitalizing the start of a sentence, article-title, or determining alphabetical order. Is this generally the standard for enwiki prose? I don't see it in the MOS. As examples:

1996 Reunion tour

1996 Was the first time the band played together since the 1980s.

1996 reunion tour
1996 was the first time the band played together since the 1980s.

DMacks (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: "1996 was ..." and "1996 reunion tour" are definitely correct on Wikipedia. I've never seen the alternative taught as a general rule, though there are some weird things in chemistry like starting a sentence with "2-Aminoethanol is ...", Hawaiian words with ʻokinas and probably other things. SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. For the record, later in life I learned that I had been taught some things that were unusual or some level of wrong even at the time they were taught, let alone just an old-fashioned teacher behind the times:) DMacks (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I was taught the same thing... I'm sure it's old fashioned now. The thing is most style guides say not to begin sentences with a numeral.... spell it out if you have to and if necessary redo the sentence structure to avoid that starting numeral. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters&oldid=1099485410"