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
→‎Current: add RfC
Line 41: Line 41:
* Other discussions
* Other discussions
**[[Talk:Modern paganism#Edit to lead]] – Related to recent RM and decision to lowercase
**[[Talk:Modern paganism#Edit to lead]] – Related to recent RM and decision to lowercase
***[[Talk:Modern paganism#RfC]]
** [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive80#Lower casing of First team & Second team All stars.]] – Follow NHL's capitalization style, or WP's? – Was there a conclusion reached before that was archived?
** [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive80#Lower casing of First team & Second team All stars.]] – Follow NHL's capitalization style, or WP's? – Was there a conclusion reached before that was archived?


Revision as of 03:25, 27 November 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
2021

Cap Indigenous?

We've had lots of discussions about "Black", but I don't find anything on the related concept "Indigenous", and similar terms. There's a question about capitalization of that one in a currently open RM, with some claims that a Wikiproject has decided it should be capped, but I can't even find any evidence for a such a discussion or consensus, or even a statement of a decision or convention (but there is a section on style guides that links guides that do capitalize). Have I missed something? Dicklyon (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lower-case it. It's a descriptive term, not a proper name. There are indigenous peoples all over most parts of the world. Certain phrases are taken as proper names, including American Indian (increasingly disused), Native American, and (in Canada) First Nations. But "indigenous people[s] of [place]" isn't among them. PS: The one of the leading reasons we have a site-wide style guide is because topical wikiprojects want to over-capitalize like mad in their topic area, almost universally (the WP:Specialized style fallacy). If a wikiproject thinks a term should be capitalized, it should make that case here where people not wedded to their pet topic, but to writing well generally and for a general audience, can have proper input.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lower-case - it's a descriptive term, not a proper name. GoodDay (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In certain cases, "indigenous" is (almost) always capitalized: Indigenous Australians; see also 1st sentence in Indigenous peoples and "Racial and Ethnic Identity", APA Style. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, "Indigenous Australians" seems to have become a proper name, with "Aboriginal Australians" also being taken for one but starting to lose ground, because "Aborigine", like "Eskimo", is increasingly taken as offensive. But "Indigenous Americans" is nowhere near this level of proper-name formation (yet?). It's just a descriptive phrase, like "indigenous Hondurans" or whatever. Contrariwise, "Native Americans" is treated near-universally as a proper name now, but this would not be true in other cases ("native Hondurans"). Yes, there are people who want to capitalize every possible way to refer to a population of people, and you can even find some source material that does this, but it's not normal writing, and it's not encyclopedic writing. It's activist writing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, Indigenous is typically capitalized in Canadian English. Graham (talk) 04:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely should be capitalized in Canadian English engvar articles. Engvar is a notable exception to most MOS. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really mean for this to be an RFC-like debate. Just wondering whether it has been discussed before. It seems not, but I'll ask at the project, too. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should be capitalized per:
  • Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes).
  • Per The Chicago Manual of Style Online: We would capitalize "Indigenous" in both contexts: that of Indigenous people and groups, on the one hand, and Indigenous culture and society, on the other. Lowercase “indigenous” would be reserved for contexts in which the term does not apply to Indigenous people in any sense—for example, indigenous plant and animal species. A parallel distinction arises for the word “black,” which many writers now capitalize in references to ethnicity and culture (a usage that CMOS supports) but not, for example, when it is simply a color.
  • Per the Associated Press style guide: Indigenous (adj.) Capitalize this term used to refer to original inhabitants of a place. Aboriginal leaders welcomed a new era of Indigenous relations in Australia. Bolivia’s Indigenous peoples represent some 62% of the population.
  • Per the APA style guide: Likewise, capitalize terms such as "Native American," "Hispanic," and so on. Capitalize "Indigenous" and "Aboriginal" whenever they are used. Capitalize "Indigenous People" or "Aboriginal People" when referring to a specific group (e.g., the Indigenous Peoples of Canada), but use lowercase for "people" when describing persons who are Indigenous or Aboriginal (e.g., "the authors were all Indigenous people but belonged to different nations").
Cheers,  oncamera  (talk page) 20:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So per those sources we should be capitalizing Indigenous, Aborigine, Native American, Black, White, Hispanic, etc at Wikipedia when used for people/groups or culture/society? Interesting. I'm not partial either way as long as it's consistent for everything. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those guides do say to cap those things, but sources (books in particular) still don't mostly capitalized Indigenous, Aborigine, Black, and White when referring to people or peoples (they do consistently capitalize Hispanic and Native American and First Nation). Wikipedia follows reliable sources, not those guides, right? Dicklyon (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Now we don't want recentism to creep in since that's against Wikipedia guidelines, are the reliable books/magazines/press, let's say over the last five years, not capitalizing those terms? And if some of those reliable sources do capitalize and some don't, I was told wikipedia should not capitalize. What's also interesting is simply scrolling through google search on the terms. It looks like most articles that capitalize First Nation and Native American, also capitalize Indigenous and Aborigine. It's when indigenous and aborigine are used alone in articles that I see lower case. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you quote where Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) says to capitalize Indigenous? Or answer the original question about whether this was ever discussed some place? Dicklyon (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to search through all of Wikipedia history to find the discussion, I'll just have the discussion now.  oncamera  (talk page) 08:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking you to track it down, just to explain why you said that "It should be capitalized per ... Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)", when I can't see it in there.
I have done some tracking down of where WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Resources came in (the Wikiproject section that lists guides that support capitalization). It was added in this edit with summary "Starting this, per talk. ..." (and the next edit), by the same editor who recommended such a section 20 minutes earlier (last Nov. 23) in this edit. So it appears that the only "talk" that led to this resource section was this editor talking to himself. And though it lists resources that support capitalization of Indigenous, it doesn't indicate anything about what guides do not recommend that, or recommend lowercase. So, you're right, it needs to be discussed here still, as it is still being discussed in books. Dicklyon (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalise cocktail names?

The issue has come up in relatively recent move requests at Talk:Long Island iced tea and Talk:Black and tan and is currently under discussion at Talk:Donkey punch (cocktail), but it seems never to have been discussed here. A commenter in the Long Island iced tea discussion invoked the spirit of MOS:GAMECAPS in arguing that "cocktail names are absolutely not proper names any more than any other...recipe topics, from ethnic dishes to herbal teas to breakfast foods to coffee cultivars to traditional stuff drinks like malta and hotchata..." I agree, but this conflicts with the International Bartenders Association style guide. Please discuss if you care. —  AjaxSmack  19:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The International Bartenders Association style guide is not our style guide. There is no need to capitalise a descriptive term such as X punch. Non-descriptive terms might be considered a proper name per the general guidance here. However, this might be difficult to determine since most recipes tend to only give the name in a heading rather than prose. There is also WP:SSF to contend with. My view is probably consistent with the spirit of MOS:GAMECAPS too. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict with specialized styles is common, and not a problem. I worked on some of those a few years ago, and the consensus was always (as far as I can recall) to go with WP style, not with IBA style. That's still the case in the discussions you linked. But yes, there are still more to fix. There may be some proper names among them, but probably not many; I don't think individual discussions are needed unless you get pushback on a fix. Dicklyon (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in mass renames. I just wanted something here to link to to save time in cases like this. Or not if my interpretation is wrong. —  AjaxSmack  16:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course RM's would be needed on each rename, all would be controversial. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
​It's interesting that the names of non-alcoholic drink don't appear to incite controversy, but add some alcohol and voilà!. (cf. iced tea/Long island iced tea, fruit punch/donkey punch). I concur with the sentiment that alcohol adds importance to the topic, but stand on principle, anyway. —  AjaxSmack  18:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most should be uppercased, expecially if used as a proper name, Harvey Wallbanger for example. Our page Long Island Iced Tea is improperly lowercased per n-grams. I checked n-grams for Sex on the Beach and found that actual sex on the beach is exactly as popular as the cocktail. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • ​But they are not proper names. —  AjaxSmack  17:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Randy, your linked n-grams very clearly shows that Long Island iced tea is not consistently capitalized in sources. And don't forget that an awful lot of the capped instances are because people capitalize table entries and section headings and such (e.g. as in this book that has it both ways). By contrast Harvey Wallbanger is treated by almost everyone as a proper name, as if it's the name of a person, which maybe it is, or was intended to be. Dicklyon (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to be nitpicky, but even Harvey Wallbanger is not a proper noun. It's capitalised because it seems to be named for a person and names derived from proper nouns are usually capitalised (including those derived from fictional people [like a Tom and Jerry], or with no actual connection to the proper noun [like a White Russian]). —  AjaxSmack  18:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They should be lower case; we have MOS:ACTCAPS for a reason, and it clearly is meant to cover this and all other "modern folklore" topics like traditional games, dances, sports moves/techniques, yadda yadda yadda. PS: In the case of a "fake proper name", like Harvey Wallbanger, upper-case is okay, and the guideline already covers that with the McTwist example.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got a copy of the 1930 Savoy cocktails book to see what they did back in the day. It's a loss – all the cocktail names are all-caps, and all ingredients are capped (e.g. Lemon Juice). Not much signal there. Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Classic WP:SSF "capitalize everything in my field/hobby just because it's a term in my field/hobby". PS: And field guides and things like them typically capitalize every entry; has nothing to do with what to capitalize in an encyclopedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC); rev'd. 23:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article title capitalization section?

I would like to have clear consensus on how article titles should be added in ```cite``` templates. Currently, there is no explicit guideline, which I think should change. Any input would be appreciated. 21:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac Henni (talk • contribs)

MOS:TITLECAPS seems to cover the matter. Is there any case you've run into that's not treated there? (And please sign your posts with four, rather than five, tildes so that people will know who you are.) Deor (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly talking about _external_ articles, ie, articles in refs. Maccore Henni user talk Respond using tb, please. 17:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be an explicit guideline. The capitalization of titles in citations should be consistent within a single individual Wikipedia article, but WP:CITEVAR is clear that consistency of citation style cannot be expected from one article to the next. The capitalization style that I prefer is: Sentence case (only the first word and proper nouns capitalized) for titles of journal papers, conference proceedings papers, chapters and sections within books, but title case (all significant words capitalized) for titles of books, journals, and book series. Variations from this style are common; I have frequently seen title case for individual journal and conference articles, or occasionally instead sentence case for book titles. The language of the title may also make a difference; often one sees foreign-language titles capitalized according to the conventions of their own language instead of English. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I also prefer sentence case for articles and title case for books. I often see refs where all-caps headlines are copied that way, and that's really not OK. I convert them to sentence case or title case when I see them. Dicklyon (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My personal tendency for citations is to use the capitalization that was used by the cited source, unless it's all-caps. I reduce all-caps, but am not especially consistent about whether I convert it to sentence case or title case. For promotional prefixes and suffixes that are not really part of the cited title, like "EXCLUSIVE:" or "WATCH VIDEO:", I sometimes just delete them and sometimes I reduce the case. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Midsentence capitalization of the

SEE RFC BELOW
This section is deprecated in favor of the RFC below.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@FyzixFighter: Our general rule is that "the word the at the start of a name is uncapitalized, regardless of the institution's own usage". It seems that this rule is not generally followed for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I've found no specific mention of an exception to our usual rule at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints, but that page consistently capitalizes The midsentence. Also, I see that The is almost always capitalized on Wikipedia in text and titles about the LDS Church, e.g. History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Should the LDS Church be an exception? Are there any other exceptions? Thank you, SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is some guidance about it at MOS:THECAPS, MOS:THEINST and at the top of WP:THE. For the LDS [C/c]hurch, I think we would look for what is done in independent reliable sources. Also see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 2#the church vs. the Church. I also suspect reviewing the Talk pages of those articles would turn up some discussion of the question. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hadn't noticed this thread and started another at WT:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints, where it says to cap "The" in article names, but doesn't say anything about otherwise. This is bizarre, as we never have different rules for article names than in sentences, except for the first letter (sentence case, you know). As for capping, some sources like the NYTimes consistently use lowercase, so there's no reason we can't follow our own style and do the same. See NYTimes search. Dicklyon (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except that we do have a handful of articles that are an exception to this rule, such as The Hague, The Citadel, History of The Citadel, List of assets owned by The New York Times Company, List of assets owned by The Walt Disney Company, Timeline of The Walt Disney Company, and so forth. The exceptions occur for article titles when "The" is deemed as part of the proper name of the entity. As for capping, some sources like the Associated Press (see APNews search and the AP stylebook announcement a few years ago) or the Salt Lake Tribune (see SLTrib search) do treat "The" as part of the proper name of the Church. I find the SLTrib pattern significant because it is a large newspaper that deals with the topic on a frequent basis and is anything but biased in favor of the Church. Exceptions can and do exist on Wikipedia when it comes to proper names in article titles, all style guides conflict on some points, and there are journalistic sources that use this style. The current wording of MOS:LDS supports this style for article titles which, depending on how you interpret WP:NCCAPS and MOS:TITLECAPS if, as in the previous examples, "The" is considered as part of the proper name. If this can be extended to sentences in the body of articles, imo, is a separate question and one which I now find myself on the fence about. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are differences between use in titles and in sentences; or if they are they are mistakes. As for The Hague, that's capped in 75% or more of uses in sources, as a translation of the proper name of the city. The New York Times and The Walt Disney Company on the other hand are only 50% capped in sources, and much more often lowercase in sentence context, so we should fix those with capped "The" in non-initial position. Dicklyon (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal1 – Pending decision on what to do about "The" LDS Church, I propose we at least remove the inconsistent advise in MOS:LDS, something like my edit that was reverted here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I don't see why this should be an exception to our MOS and as observed per NYC, we would not be alone. I looked back through the archive at WT:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints. The church has chosen in relatively recent times to capitalise the to emphasise that it is the church of Jesus Christ. This would fall to MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. There is also the claim in some discussions that the is part of the proper name and should be capitalised accordingly (as part of the proper name). This argument lacks credibility, since we don't capitalise similar situations for institutions in which the is part of the name. Other arguments are to "official name" but again, this then goes back to other similar cases and that we wouldn't see this as an exception to our guidance. I would see that this will require an RfC and probably at a prominent place - VPP? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the proper name argument - this was the significant thread through arguments regarding whether or not to move The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (see here and here). If this isn't part of the proper name of the church and is insignificant, what is stopping that move from taking place? In about a couple of hours, I've been able to identify at least two dozen examples of this pattern being used on long-standing articles for other similar proper names. I do think an RFC would be advisable - MOS:LDS is still very much an active MOS and none of the other editors besides myself that regularly contribute to that MOS or other related discussions. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Cinderella. This would be a slippery slope to capping "the" in thousands of cases. It's disruptive to the eyes in mid-sentence. Tony (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I would agree with Cinderella as well.
    • Support: I've heard no explanation of why this institution should be an exception that is consistent with Wikipedia style. The only exception I'm aware of is The Hague. SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need an RFC? – Per this revert, at least one editor thinks the clear consensus here is not formal enough for such a change? Should we do an RFC and wait a month? Dicklyon (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: SchreiberBike said what I would have. Given the existing MOS guidance and the (early) consensus here, I'd suggest waiting another few days and then enacting this proposal again. If there's just one dissenter, they should accept consensus or start their own RfC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per what my reasoning at WT:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: WP:NCCAPS allows for the capitalization of second or subsequent words in an article for multiword page titles if the title phrase is a proper name. Similarly, according to MOS:TITLECAPS, proper names in article titles to be capitalized. While MOS:INSTITUTIONS is helpful, WP:NCCAPS is the style guideline on capitalization in article titles, and therefore is the more complete relevant guidance. (I would argue this is similar to MOS:HON and MOS:SAINTS - the former is for article text and says to avoid honorifics related to sainthood, while the latter gives similar guidance for article titles but more completely explains possible exceptions.)
If we look at style patterns in journalistic reliable sources, the Associated Press (see APNews search and the AP stylebook announcement a few years ago) and the Salt Lake Tribune (see SLTrib search) do treat "The" as part of the proper name of the Church and usually capitalize it. I find the SLTrib pattern significant because it is a large newspaper that deals with the topic on a frequent basis (and therefore has had to ensure a consistent and cogent style on the matter) and is anything but biased in favor of the Church.
Exceptions can and do exist on Wikipedia. The naming convention and MOS guidelines, per the box at the top of each, admit that occasional exceptions may apply. This is not a carve out of an exception for a singular article - this is applying caveats for exceptions already built into existing article title naming conventions. As "The" is part of the proper name of the Church, then "The" can be consistent with NCCAPS and TITLECAPS given the caveats for proper names. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FyzixFighter: You and others point out that "'The' is part of the proper name of the Church", and that is correct, but our rule at MOS:THEINST is specifically for when The is part of a proper name. No one would capitalize the before a common name or capitalize the when it is not part of an institution's name.

The only exception I am aware of today is The Hague, but there are probably others I don't know of. The others which have been pointed out are errors which need fixing. Most fixes happen without fuss, but people have strong feelings about things like the LDS Church, Disney and the Citadel, so usually I make the correction and if someone changes it back I let it slide, but this one has come up many times so I brought it here. SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose:As the word "The" is part of the proper name The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints per a variety of third-party sources already mentioned by @FyzixFighter, it should be capitalized per WP:NCCAPS ("For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence.") Examples of this on Wiki[pedia are The New York Times and The Home Depot, where a capitalized The is included in both the title and mid-sentence throughout the articles. Bahooka (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bahooka: I note that WP:NCCAPS is specifically about naming conventions for article titles rather than in text and says "lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence." So the important question is how to capitalize mid-sentence. Then we follow MOS:THEINST which says "the word the at the start of a name is uncapitalized, regardless of the institution's own usage".

The example of The New York Times is different because that is the name of a creative work and italicized. We use the full name of a newspaper the same way we would of a book or painting. I see that in some uses on the New York Times's page there are errors such as where it says "The paper is owned by The New York Times Company" but errors in Wikipedia can't be used as examples of how to do things right. I'm sure among our 6,839,938 articles, there are many examples like The Home Depot and The Citadel which are wrong, but there are many examples which are right and we have a guideline which should apply to all institutions equally. SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose for article titles. In my mind, the uppercase The and the lowercase d are important in differentiating the Utah-based church from similarly named entities like Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite), Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Gladdenite), and Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) (the common ancestor to all latter-day-saint churches, whose name was changed to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 1838). These things don't mean much to ordinary readers, but it's something we should think about when writing a style guide. Speaking of which, we should definitely give some weight to the styleguides of 3rd party sources. As of the last major styleguide update in 2019, it looks like the AP and the Salt Lake Tribune both use uppercase The. link (see the tweet). The NYTimes (based on the Google search linked by User:Dicklyon) seems to favor lowercase, but is inconsistent. (See [1] where the is lowercase in the caption but uppercase in the body.) But I would give more weight to the AP (more universal) and the SLTrib (more specific experience with Mormonism, but not affiliated with the church) than the NYTimes. ~Awilley (talk) 02:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree, see also here. Also the AP StyleGuide capitalizes it for what it's worth... Rogerdpack (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Let's use a consistent and logical approach. Popcornfud (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal2 – State explicity at MOS:LDS that the Church of... is not an exception and should use lowercase the when not in a sentence-initial or equivalent context. Dicklyon (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support this also. It could simply be included as a bulleted example; we need not devote a full sentence to it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: it would just make it clear that there is no exception for this institution to our general rule for institutions. SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Where does one go to "request an exception"? I'd like to try. Cheers! Rogerdpack (talk) 06:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support. I'm conflicted, as I'd rather not lengthen the guideline. That said, a non-state organization example wouldn't be the worst thing to have here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Though perhaps just as a footnote since people often take silence on a particular issue as tacit consent. Some comments here may not realise where MOS:LDS is and that it is a stand-alone guideline. However, it might be a first step to making the case of LDS explicit in the guidance here. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it's a subsidiary to the MOS, not a "standalone" guideline, and as such might as well be pretty explicit there, not at MOS:CAPS itself. Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per what my reasoning at WT:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support if this is meant only for in article text, Oppose if it applies to article titles as the current MOS:LDS wording only applies to article titles and for the reasons for opposing Proposal 1 above. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose:Same as for Proposal1. As the word "The" is part of the proper name The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints per a variety of third-party sources already mentioned by @FyzixFighter, it should be capitalized per WP:NCCAPS ("For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence.") Examples of this on Wiki[pedia are The New York Times and The Home Depot, where a capitalized The is included in both the title and mid-sentence throughout the articles. Bahooka (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose:Same as for Proposal1, for the reasons noted by FyzixFighter and Bahooka. Have long-relied on WP:THE in this instance, which may have felt overly-simple, but support the reasons given by the these two editors noted and associated examples....also agree with editors, such as Awilley, who referenced the Salt Lake Tribune's (very independent of the church) use of "The." ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose:Same as for Proposal1 Awilley, and my own comment there. Rogerdpack (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I've been thinking about this over the past day and looking at how other organizations whose name begins with The are handled. I also realized that often the full name of the church (for obvious reasons) is often used only once in many articles. (After that it's abbreviated to LDS Church or the church—see the Featured Article Mitt Romney for an example of how that looks.) So it makes sense to also think about what that wikilink should look like. Here's a table illustrating my reactions to various formulations:
Running prose
A1 ...was an employee of The Hershey Company ...was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ?
A2 ...was an employee of the Hershey Company ...was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ?
A3 ...was an employee of the Hershey Company ...was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints checkY
A4 ...was an employee of The Hershey Company ...was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ☒N
A5 ...was an employee of the Hershey Company ...was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ?
A6 ...the Pennsylvania-based Hershey Company ...the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints checkY
Infobox or similar
B1 Produced by: The Hershey Company Denomination: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints checkY
B2 Produced by: the Hershey Company Denomination: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ☒N
Article titles
C1 List of products manufactured by The Hershey Company List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints checkY
I'm torn on A1 vs. A2 as a lot of it comes down to the context. The capital The emphasizes the official name of the organization which could be distracting in many contexts but still appropriate in constructions like, "In 2016, barkTHINS was acquired by The Hershey Company." It subtly tells me that is the full name of the company, which I find helpful. If it's not wikilinked I definitely prefer lowercase (A3 instead of A4). For article titles and infoboxes, I think the capital The is still appropriate.
Whether this is important enough to make a hard rule about, I don't know. I think I'd prefer to leave enough room to put a capital T in where it seems appropriate, especially if it's wikilinked. ~Awilley (talk) 06:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on most of those. We conventionally use sentence case for infobox items (even though we discourage capitalization after a colon in prose). But I don't agree on C1, which would be a special capitalization rule for titles that's different from sentence case. That's what this section is all about. We've never had such a thing in our guidelines (with the exception of the obscure MOS:LDS clause that brought this up). And not A1, since we explicitly do not cap for emphasis, which is what you propose here. Another case of interest is The New York Times, which I think should be capped when italicized, i.e. in title case when referring to the major work, but not when talking about the New York Times as an organization, which is more parallel to the Hershey Company. Dicklyon (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Awilley: Those tables are helpful and I agree with most of your ticks. I think A2 and A5 are also fine, but not A1. I disagree with C1 for both the Hershey Company and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I think that style does make it more clear that the name of the organization includes the, but I don't think it's worth the jarring mid-sentence The or many opportunities for confusion. SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reflexively, I dislike A2 with its transition from black to blue despite continuing with lowercase for "the". I prefer A5 over that. I'm not sure about A1 (I think I would generally prefer A5 over A1, although it might depend on what independent reliable sources do). I'm not fond of C1. Endorsing C1 would be inconsistent with endorsing A3 over A4. There should be a corresponding second variation described for article titles. Actually, article titles should just be the same as running prose. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"transition from black to blue despite continuing with lowercase for 'the'" Exactly. Thank you for articulating that better than I did. ~Awilley (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note re MOS:TMTHE and Ngram: I just noticed that MOS:TMTHE concurs with MOS:THEINST and goes into some detail about exceptions. I don't think anyone in this discussion so far has pointed out MOS:TMTHE. The church in question does not clearly fall into the provided list of exceptions, unless it can be shown that its name is "consistently treated this way in most reliable sources". This Ngram appears to show the lowercase "the" being more popular. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a formal RfC?

The proposals above are support:oppose 7:3 and 6:2. Is that sufficient or do we need a formal RfC? If we decide it's necessary, I'm willing to coordinate the development of the request or someone else could. I hope we can all work on a proposal together so that it will be clear and fair.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FyzixFighter, BarrelProof, Dicklyon, Cinderella157, Tony1, Firefangledfeathers, InfiniteNexus, Bahooka, Awilley, SMcCandlish, and ChristensenMJ: If there's no need for an RfC, can we say this has been resolved? That would mean the changes proposed above would be enacted and we can start making the changes to article titles and text to remove mid-sentence capitalization of The. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This already effectively is an RfC, just without an RfC tag. Why not add an RfC tag to it? We need not restart from scratch.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That won't work. RFCs have to satisfy WP:RFCBRIEF, and the questions above do not. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just put an RFC tag on the current overall discussion. GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just call it done. 7:3 and 6:2 are clear enough. Dicklyon (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints is inconsistent with MOS:CAPS despite (IMO) reasonably clear guidance here and some novel arguments have been made herein as to why LDS is an exception. I am of the feeling that some editors at LDS may not be willing to accept the broader community consensus established here unless there is a degree of formality (WP:NOTGETTINGIT). At the least, I would suggest an independent close at WP:CR. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this is still going? Personally I don't understand why some editors don't seem to understand MOS:THEINST, but if need be, sure we can open an RfC. Though the question should probably be more direct and broader than the ones above, i.e. something like Considering MOS:THEINST, MOS:THECAPS, and WP:NCCAPS, should the word "the" in "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" be capitalized when appearing in the middle of article titles? InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that an RfC shouldn't be necessary, but I agree with @Cinderella157 that there will be some opposition to this. I think we need to do it formally and that the RfC should be as fair and clear as possible. I'm drafting an RfC at User:SchreiberBike/Workspace/Mid-sentence and mid-article title capitalization of the in the full name of the LDS Church. Please contribute there. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I've said my piece above based on what I personally have seen in the sources. If I failed to convince anybody then I won't stand in the way of whatever consensus you find. ~Awilley (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SchreiberBike: I would add the guidelines I referenced above to the RfC question (maybe not the question itself, but below the question next to the examples), i.e. MOS:THEINST, MOS:THECAPS, and WP:NCCAPS. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@InfiniteNexus: See the RfC below at #RfC on mid-sentence and mid-article title capitalization of the in the full name of the LDS Church. I tried to pose the question clearly and fairly in the RfC question without including any arguments. Others have mentioned the guidelines you reference above in their explanations for their !vote, so I think it's covered, but your recommendation would be appreciated there. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨  12:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my bad, I just stopped by to check on this section, so I didn't notice that the RfC had already started below. I'll add my !vote momentarily. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OSU for MOS:THEINST

Does anyone happen to know how the Ohio State University example got into MOS:THEINST? I wonder whether that is really appropriate. Why say "researchers at the Ohio State University" instead of "researchers at Ohio State University"? Is our MoS inadvertently implying that "the" should be included when referring to that institution? The article title doesn't have "the". People generally don't say "the Indiana University", "the Colorado State University", "the Texas Christian University" or "the Western Kentucky University". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BarrelProof, as you point out, the is usually optional in prose when written as X University; however, the official name is The Ohio State University - though this doesn't appear to be the case for the other universities you cite. When the construction of the name is University of X it is more common to refer to it as the University of X. For example, the University of Queensland is established by statute with that official name and the is also capitalised in the statute. Griffith University (also in Brisbane) is also established by statute which refers to it as the Griffith University but the is not explicitly capitalised in the statute and it does not refer to itself with the. More directly to your question, the Ohio State University is a valid example; however, because the is optional in prose and often omitted, there are probably better examples. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ohio State has made a huge fuss of insisting that they use the the [2]. I think it's reasonable to go along with their preferred form of address, in formal writing (this comment is not formal writing). I draw the line at capitalization, though: the the should be lowercase unless at the start of a sentence. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The fact that they make a huge fuss over it is part of why we shouldn't endorse their silly posturing in our MOS. This is a bad example to put in our MOS, since it implicitly endorses a controversial and promotional phrasing. If you ask someone which university they are enrolled in, no one would reply "The Ohio State University". If they do, they should be promptly slapped with a wet trout. I love it that the headline of the above-referenced NPR article does not include the word "The". Please note that at the moment, I'm not talking about what the Ohio State University article should say (an article that does not include "The" in its title). I'm talking about what the MOS should say. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last week I went thruogh and downcased a bunch of those The, where in many cases it would have been better to just take them out. Maybe I'll take another pass at it. Dicklyon (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would just remove it in most cases. There are probably some constructions where "the" reads better, but in most cases it's just a useless additional word.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The change was made by User:Ground Zero in August 2015 after discussion WT:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 19#Moving along. It previously said to go with the institution's preference, which came into MOSCAPS in 2012 here, apparently copying out of WP:MOS. It got into there in this edit in Jan. 2010, with nothing in support on the talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thnk it's OK to leave the example with lowercase the, as it indicates that we've thought about it and rejected their specialized capping; but we could also put an alternative where the is dropped. Dicklyon (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I take issue with the assertion that "The fact that they make a huge fuss over it is part of why we shouldn't endorse their silly posturing in our MOS."
This Manual of Style is not about the use of "the". It is about capitalization. This is a valid example because some people will write "the Ohio State University" whether we like it or not, especially if they are university staff. The important thing from the perspective of this MoS is that they not write "The Ohio State University" (unless they are beginning a sentence with it).
The argument over whether to use "the" or not belongs elsewhere, not here. Ground Zero | t 18:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing part of what I said. I totally agree that "The argument over whether to use "the" or not belongs elsewhere, not here." This section is about capitalization, not "the". That is why I'm saying that this is not a good example to put here. I'm not saying we should change it to say "researchers at Ohio State University". I'm saying we should change the example so that it does not appear to express an opinion either way about whether to include "the" or not for that particular institution. Some other institutions that use "The" with caps in self-published content include The University of Texas at Arlington ("Founded in 1895, The University of Texas at Arlington is a Carnegie Research 1 institution ..."), The University of Texas at Austin ("Like the state it calls home, The University of Texas at Austin is a bold, ambitious ..."), and The Chicago School of Professional Psychology ("By integrating physical and mental well-being, and combining theory with hands-on experience, The Chicago School is a leading ...". I think UT Arlington or UT Austin would be a better choice than OSU. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it is a good example because without this specific guidance it is likely that OSU-enthusiasts will capitalize the the, and we should tell them not to in this case and in any similar case. Switching to another example would likely be seen as confirmation by them that (contrary to what we want) OSU should somehow be treated as special and different. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the points being made by both BarrelProof and by David. The solution might be to retain the example of OSU because it serves a specific purpose but to add another example where the would be the natural construction. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The example is important for forestalling a topically specific bad habit but is not really the most illustrative of regular enc. writing. There's no hurry though; pending resolution of the discussion above below this one, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints may be the ideal additional example.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done: Per this discussion and the related RfC, I've replaced the OSU example with an LDS example [3].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on mid-sentence and mid-article title capitalization of the in the full name of the LDS Church

WP:SNOW IN FAVOR OF LOWERCASE
There is clear consensus in this discussion that "the" in "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" should be lowercase per MOS:INSTITUTIONS and WP:THE. WP:SNOW tells us not to waste time with discussions for which it would be an insurmountable task to overturn the building consensus. This is one such instance. There is no need to wait 30 days when 2 weeks have passed and no one has commented in 4 days. No one has dissented in 12 days. The consensus is clear here.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should [T]the be capitalized mid-sentence and mid-article title when referring to [T]the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Please respond Capitalize or Lower case and explain as you desire. There is an additional section below for discussion and alternatives.

Sentence examples:

  • The history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints includes ... .

or

  • The history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints includes ... .

Article title examples:

  • History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

or

  • History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The text above, and the notifications and headings below were developed and finalized at User:SchreiberBike/Workspace/Mid-sentence and mid-article title capitalization of the in the full name of the LDS Church and the associated talk page. That proposal was announced on this page above. SchreiberBike | ⌨  12:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications

The following pages have been notified:

Responses

  • Lower case. Let's use a consistent and logical approach. Popcornfud (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lower case, per Popcornfud. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This seems to be already covered by the guideline at MOS:INSTITUTIONS, which MOS:THECAPS notes may be different from how The New York Times is treated. Is this a proposal to change the "Institutions" guideline? StarryGrandma (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No changes to MOS:INSTITUTIONS, however Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints has an exception which would be eliminated and practice in articles and article titles has been to capitalize the when using the full name of the institution. Those would be changed and it would be clear that MOS:INSTITUTIONS applies to that institution. This RfC grew out of the discussion in #Midsentence capitalization of the above which did not reach a consensus. I hope that adds clarity. SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use lower case. There is no reason to make a strange exception, as independent sources mostly do not make one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lowercase the – First of all, we should be clear that since titles use sentence case, there's not a separate question for the two different contexts, as some had suggested elsewhere. Just as we do for the Ohio State University, lowercase the when not in sentence-initial or title-initial position. Also note that most sources use lowercase the in mid-title or mid-sentence. Dicklyon (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lowercase the, there seems to be no valid reason to apply an exception to MOS:INSTITUTIONS and MOS:THECAPS in this case. —El Millo (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • lowercase as that is the usual way around here. except for the beatles after a huge contretemps. and i guess some newspaper names. but not churches. Herostratus (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't find exceptions for the Beatles, do you? If you point them out, I'll fix them. Dicklyon (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lowercase per MOS:THEINST and SMcCandlish, Dicklyon, et al. Graham (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There would seem to be come conflicts between MOS:THEINST and the guidelines in WP:THE, which, based upon MOS:THEINST, would need a review/revision. WP:THE lists The Church of Latter-day Saints, along with The Coca-Cola Company, The Hershey Company, The New York Times Company, and The Travelers Companies as examples of when to retain a capitalized The. My default thought is that The should remain capitalized for the church when the full name is given the same way The would remain capped for book or movie title; it's the formal name. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:THE is a naming convention guideline, applying to article titles. It's not commenting on capitalization in running prose. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, my confusion. But logically, I would expect the running text to be consistent with the title (at least as far as something like this goes) in most cases. Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The guidance to include "The" at the front of article titles for those entities is in no way in conflict with the guidance to use lowercase "the" in sentences. The same "the" would be lowercase in title when not in the initial position. I.e., use sentence case. Dicklyon (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Capitalize per Tcr25's comments. "The" is a part of the church's formal title, and ought to be included where it is appropriate, most especially when it is wikilinked in the article, or referring to the legal entity of the church. I have no qualms with following the MOS at other locations, however (should be "History of the Church", etc.). Rollidan (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have examples of where you'd cap it, and where not, in actual article sentences? I think being wikilinked is never an appropriate criterion for capping in a sentence. Is there precedent for that? Dicklyon (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lowercase I see no reason to carve out this one exception to our otherwise consistent style rules. --Jayron32 17:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Capitalize - Do the correct case, dam the style fantasies and any notion WP can just ignore the context, externally known “correct” case, and prior WP guidances. Just use the correct case as indicated guidelines at MOS:INSTITUTIONS, MOS:THECAPS, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints. I see unmentioned prior discussion at Midsentence capitalization, but let’s be serious - “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” is part of the proper noun “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”. Informal usage without “The” would also not capitalise “Church” or even have the whole phrase. Please respect any entity or person by using what they use as their name, as simply the correct name. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent within an article, not consistent between articles. Most readers don’t care whether it is capitalized or not, and won’t notice which was chosen as long as it is consistent within the specific article they are reading. Go with what was done in the first major edit, and stick with it. Blueboar (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lowercase, just as we do for the Beatles ("The Beatles" as the article's title, "the Beatles" in the article's running prose [although I personally think the title should be just "Beatles"]). There's no reason for the LDS church to be a special case. Deor (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think I've said more than my share in the previous discussion. Sources are divided on how they write the name. Styleguides for the AP and the Salt Lake Tribune (local Utah newspaper not affiliated with the church) both say uppercase. NYTimes prefers lowercase. I've also seen both upper and lowercase in books about Mormonism. It looks like the consensus here is trending toward lowercase. My preference then would be to leave enough leeway to use uppercase if the full name of the church is wiki-linked to avoid the awkward transition from lower to uppercase in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. ~Awilley (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Awilley - Style guides is a good idea, though in this topic the Salt Lake Tribune would seem more authoritative. Can you provide links to the style guides you mention ? That of LDS is here and here, and for AP is mentioned here, both seem for capitalised “The”. Chicago manual of style I think is the other way, but I have no link. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's clear that different publishers have different styles. Wikipedia has an articulated style, too, so we might as well follow it. Wikipedia style does not include any special treatment for wikilinked vs plain text. Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" redirects to the LDS article, one simply has to type "the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]" to avoid the awkward inclusion of "the" in the link. Deor (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lowercase Per my comments in the initiating discussion, I see no reasonable reason that this should be an exception to the more general guidance of the MOS. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lowercase As I wrote in the preceding two discussions (WT:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints#Capitalization issue and #Midsentence capitalization of the), this is clearly documented by MOS:THEINST and MOS:THECAPS, so anyone !voting "uppercase" would be ignoring said guidelines. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lower case: MOS:INSTITUTIONS applies to this institution like it does to other institutions. I don't find support for the idea that there is something different about this name because it is a proper name, formal name, or special in some other way. MOS:INSTITUTIONS is specifically about such names, the proper, formal, special names of institutions. Wikipedia does take seriously the choices of other publications and style guides when setting its own style, but then Wikipedia follows its own style. If other publications consistently capitalized, that might be persuasive, but they do not. SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lower case per MOS:INSTITUTIONS.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and alternatives

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Application of this RFC to article space

Hi all, I think I applied the RFC to pretty much everything, but there are likely to still be some hanging threads. For example, I am a page mover but I think there was at least one page (that I now cannot find) which was admin-protected. If you come across anything else which applies, please change it! And if you cannot, permissions wise, feel free to drop a note here to find someone who can. Please and thanks!— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shibbolethink: Thanks for taking care of that. You actually missed quite a few articles, which I've moved. Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only one that's admin-protected, so I've posted at WP:RM/T. There were also a ton of categories (around 70) which I've requested for speedy renaming at WP:CFDS. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for doing that. I am unfamiliar with the moving process for categories so I was going to look into it today. As an FYI to anyone and everyone: when you move a page, per WP:RMCI, you should also fix the title of that page as it appears in the body and make sure the first sentence still makes sense per our guidelines. Also check all the templates at the bottom of the page! So that the title appears bolded when viewing that template on the page in question. See also: WP:BOLDTITLE. I've gone through and done this for all of the pages both InfiniteNexus and I touched, but there may still be other pages where the text is not compliant with our MOS as decided here. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yeah, I usually do that extra step after moving a page, but given the sheer number of pages I confess I got lazy and skipped it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization in section headers that start with numbers

There was one discussion on this page a year ago which was continued at MOS:BLP. The second discussion, to quote User:EEng, "collapsed under its own weight" and died out without any resolution. I would like to revive this since it is a source of ongoing disagreement. As it is not specific to BLPs, I am doing so here this time.

The issue is, should section headers be

  • hypothetical:
    • (A1) 2018 Elections vs. (A2) 2018 elections
    • (B1) 2018 and 2019 Elections vs. (B2) 2018 and 2019 elections
    • (C1) Postwar period: Educator vs. (C2) Postwar period: educator
    • (D1) 2021–present: Educator vs. (D2) 2021–present: educator
    • (E1) 2021: Educator vs. (E2) 2021: educator
  • actual articles
    • (F1) 1891–1940: Early history vs (F2) 1891–1940: early history from Glycine (watch)
    • (G1) 2005–2007: Career beginnings vs (G2) 2005–2007: career beginnings from Lady Gaga
    • (H1) 2003–2007: Production work, Encore and musical hiatus vs (H2) 2003–2007: production work, Encore and musical hiatus from Eminem

Although this is generalized to numbers, in reality it seems to apply mostly or perhaps exclusively to years.

One example without a number (year) is included because MOS:COLON is in play here, which says to use lower case following the colon unless what follows is a complete sentence. So per that guideline, most of the above should be lower case (C2-G2). That is unless someone has a reason that MOS:COLON does not apply to section headers. The other even more relevant guidelines are MOS:HEADINGS which says that section headings should use sentence case and MOS:SECTIONCAPS which says sentence case means Capitalize the first letter of the first word. This seems to be the source of the inconsistency. Some people interpret that literally and conclude the year is a number, not a word. Others read into that somehow that the year (or year range) is an "introductory clause" and "not part of the actual sentence" - sentence case begins after that. Other have just said that capitalizing the non-numeric element "looks better".

I see these options:

  1. always lower case. Update MOS:SECTIONCAPS to say Capitalize the first character of the first element if it is a letter (A2-H2)
  2. sentence case starts after introductory clause preceding a colon (C1-H1), otherwise #1 (A2-B2)
  3. avoid the construct if at all possible, e.g (F3) Early history (1891-1940): or Early history, 1891-1940:

There are certainly examples of #3 - see Atari and George Clooney. But there are cases where doing that would be unnatural like in Clayton Kershaw. Even if we were to say #3 is preferred, we still need to decide what to do in the other cases and pick a second choice (#1 or #2).

Note: I have left out any choice that leaves A1 & B1 since it seems clear that without a colon, section headers follow article titles and there is no exception in titles when the first "word" is a year. Also, option #2 treats post-colon capitalization uniformly; there could be a case for making that dependent on whether the "introductory clause" was numeric or not (C2 & D1/E1). For simplicity, that can be follow-up discussion that would not be necessary if an consensus emerges for option #1. MB 17:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As evidenced above, the WP:RSP that format their titles in sentence-case and capitalize the next word after the introductory colon include BBC, ABC News, AP News, LA Times, NPR, Politico, Reuters, The Independent, USA Today, CNN, and TechCrunch, as well as a UK government site that popped up on my search.

It would be best if Wikipedia follows the majority of reliable sources in capitalizing the first word after a colon in a heading, which is typically what is done when determining WP:MOS. –spongeworthy93(talk) 19:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you are looking at are article titles, and MOS:TITLES has us handle them the same way. What is under discussion here are headings inside articles; not the same thing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 We only capitalise the first letter of the first word when using sentence case. I see no reason not to treat an initial number as the first word. At MOS:NUMNOTES, we already have advice to avoid starting a sentence with a figure. This reasonably extends to other uses of sentence case. It also gives examples of sentences beginning with a number, thereby illustrating how such a sentence would be capitalise - noting that the word after the initial number is not capitalised. As to comments here about capitalising after a colon, we also have specific advice on this at MOS:COLON: When what follows the colon is also a complete sentence, start it with a capital letter, but otherwise, do not capitalize after a colon except where doing so is needed for another reason, as for a proper name. Headings are not complete sentences; therefore, the advice is clearly no. Changing the advice here would create an inconsistency with WP:MOS and this is not the place for a discussion that would make such a change. As to any specific change to our guidance, I think we should reserve that matter until we have a consensus on the principle to be applied. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Broken shortcuts: MOS:DEGREE, MOS:DEGREES

MOS:DEGREE and MOS:DEGREES both point to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Academic degrees. However, that subsection/anchor no longer exists (I personally was trying to end up at MOS:UNITSYMBOLS for the temperature symbol). Opencooper (talk) 06:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Opencooper They should be retargeted to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Academic titles and degrees. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Chris the speller and Sdkb. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted them to where Ahecht pointed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:RACECAPS

For the last few years, those of us who edit the Indigenous articles, many of whom participate in the Indigenous Wikiproject have been standardizing the capitalization of "Indigenous", as this is the convention in the world at large at this time. Older print sources don't always do it, so there are sources that have both. But we are going with those preferred by the people being described. I've added the ones we have up now, such as those from the Associated Press, The Chicago Manual of Style, The Native American Journalists Association, and the APA Style. There are many more who just haven't published their style guides, but their use of this convention can be seen in reading sources that are considered reliable for Indigenous coverage. I have tweaked the sources a bit at the wikiproject page, and in the WP:TRIBE notes, and fixed a link. So, my proposal is to simply add the word "Indigenous" in this part, as it is a synonym for "Native American", with a footnote link to the fuller explanations at WP:TRIBE. Current text:

Ethno-racial "color labels" may be given capitalized (Black and White) or lower-case (black and white). The capitalized form will be more appropriate in the company of other upper-case terms of this sort (Asian–Pacific, Black, Hispanic, Native American, and White demographic categories).

Proposed:

Ethno-racial "color labels" may be given capitalized (Black and White) or lower-case (black and white). The capitalized form will be more appropriate in the company of other upper-case terms of this sort (Asian–Pacific, Black, Hispanic, Native American, Indigenous,[a] and White demographic categories).

Notes

  1. ^ For more on Indigenous naming conventions see WP:TRIBE

- CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: As someone that tries to capitalize "Indigenous" in any article that I come across where it has not happened already I concur that this alteration to MOS policy is needed. I haven't been reverted to this point but I have heard of others that have faced issues. Almost all modern sources that I run across already capitalize the word when used no matter the context. --ARoseWolf 21:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Capitalizing Indigenous when referring to people is definitely a done deal with major style guides, as CorbieVreccan has already demonstrated with links to Chicago, AP, APA, etc. Major news sources are also on board, e.g. The New York Times. Indigenous and Native American identity is assuredly not a racial identity, so I'm wondering if there could be other shortcuts than MOS:RACECAPS. Perhaps MOS:IDENTITYCAPS? MOS:POCCAPS? Yuchitown (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
    Completely agree this needs to be addressed in ways and places that clarify this is not racial. I think we need at least a brief mention at RACECAPS, as most non-Natives still tend to look first in the racial category (see current text above). But we can hopefully use this to clarify and link to better explanations. I'll go look at the other ones you mention. Please suggest improvements in wording for those and link if you have ideas for them. Best, - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yuchitown and ARoseWolf: I'm looking at MOS:ETHNICITY. There has been some back and forth there over this, but not recently. Currently we only have a footnote at MOS:ETHNICITY. Editors unfamiliar with Indigenous issues have wanted to take tribal citizenship out of the lede of BLPs, citing this policy, insisting NDN-ID is "ethnicity". But the policy is clear that citizenship goes in the lede. I'm posting on talk over there now and would appreciate input: MOS:ETHNICITY and citizenship. Thanks! - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also noting, per Yuchitown, that in addition to The New York Times [4], here are some more WP:RS sources that also capitalize "Indigenous" when referring to the people: Chicago Tribune [5], Los Angeles Times [6], The Christian Science Monitor [7], Forbes [8], Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC): [9], The Guardian [10]. Just off the top of my head. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is stated: this is the convention in the world at large at this time; however, this is not supported by ngram evidence here and here. The term is not inherently a proper noun. It may be appropriate to capitalise it in certain cases but not in all instances. I would also observe that WP:TRIBE has evolved to give advice that is at odds with MOS:CAPS. It would capitalise circumpolar in Circumpolar peoples which is contrary to the ngram evidence and tribe in Tribe of Naphtali which is contrary to the ngram evidence. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See what I said about out of date books that regard Indigenous peoples as subhuman, categorized the same way as flora and fauna. Those are the uses/stats that are throwing off the results in the links you shared. The changes instituted by Chicago MOS, AP, APA, and the NYT, which are now standard usage by them and other journalists, are contemporary efforts to correct that bias. The CAPS and TRIBE pages are at odds for the moment, yes; that's why we're here to update MOS:CAPS to be in line with contemporary usage, not out of date, denigrating tomes. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where you have stated this is the convention in the world at large at this time, I am referring to the recent portion of the ngram evidence. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "Christ" or "Jesus Christ" not discussed

And yet I thought I'd seen discussion in an MoS at some point. Seems relevant here. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: there's MOS:JESUS, leading to a paragraph in the Judaism-related MoS. If you prefer a more mainstream venue to expand on this, might I suggest MOS:HON? The current page, MOS:Capital letters, treats the capitalisation of words/names. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I read you're confusion. Other than committing the etymological fallacy of assuming that merely because "Christ" in the context of Jesus Christ was originally not a personal name doesn't mean that English doesn't treat it as one. Basically all of English treats it that way, and it's a novel change to the language to lower-case it merely because it didn't originate as a personal name. The MOS shouldn't be in the business of introducing novel changes to English, even if at some time in the mists of history, Christ wasn't considered a personal name. --Jayron32 19:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Jayron32's analysis is convincing to me, but I think there might also be some difference in how different people, of different religions and cultures, react to it. Some people understand it as a title, and others don't. There are probably people who think it's a surname, and there are probably people who have only encountered it as a swear word. Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Manual of Style#Jesus recommends not using what is/was a title.
Speaking of which, MOS:CAPS is the wrong place to talk about this. I don't think we need to write this down, and I don't think that writing it down will stop the problem, but if we did, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Titles of people would probably be the correct place for it. Perhaps if you decide to pursue it, you could deal with the misuse of the US title "President". The US only has one president at a time. Former presidents are properly addressed by their most senior non-unique past title: Governor Clinton, Senator Obama, and Mr. Trump – and in Wikipedia articles, by their names, perhaps with the occasional "then-president" or "the former president" thrown in as an explanation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters&oldid=1124057594"