Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
WikiProject Manual of Style
WikiProject icon This page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.
 

Material design/Material Design[edit]

There currently is a small discussion on the proper capitalisation of the design language of Android. Since there doesn't seem to be more widespread interest and the discussion has stagnated, I would like to ask for some more input from other groups. The discussion can be found here: Talk:Material design#Title capitalization.–Totie (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Olara Otunnu[edit]

Your kind expertise is needed at this article regarding several ongoing capitalization issues. Thanks. 103.56.218.194 (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Titles of works[edit]

I have noticed a significant number of online resources that now give work titles in sentence case, over the last year or eighteen months. Perhaps this is partly the influence of our own "down" style. It may be that this is something we have to re-consider in a couple of years if it becomes more widespread. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC).

Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative[edit]

I am not sure whether the capitalization is correct here. Should it really be all lower case as stated on Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Section_headings? It looks weird to me. --Ysangkok (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  • IMO, all of the section headings should be changed from title case to sentence case. GregJackP Boomer! 01:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment on capitalisation of job positions etc[edit]

An argument has started on the St Paul's Cathedral article about whether words such as "chapter" and "dean" ought to be capitalised. My view is that these should be treated as generic nouns and job titles and, therefore, should not be capitalised. While it can be correct to capitalise "dean" when used as part of a proper name, such as "Dean of St Paul's", when referring to "the dean" it is my view that the word is not capitalised. Another editor has quoted the opening of the MOS guidelines that "words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia" and is apparently arguing on the basis of St Paul's Cathedral sources which I do not consider meets the requirements of "consistently". The key words in the MOS introduction seem to be "consistently capitalized" and a specific organisation's own inhouse style of using "vanity capitalisation" for such things does not meet this criteria in my view. Organisations often capitalise words (such as in "the University", "the College" and "the Cathedral") in their own publications which should not be when not used as part of a proper name. As there is some possible ambiguity in the MOS guidelines on this kind of matter I would appreciate some other editors' views on these matters. Thanks. Anglicanus (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you are absolutely correct. Don't forget "the Company" and "the School". An organization's own web page is usually worthless for deciding whether to capitalize. Chris the speller yack 14:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I concur. GregJackP Boomer! 14:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
As do I. Deor (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. If interested, some so far not very productive discussion has been started by the other editor here on my talk page. I am not inclined to give any weight to the Cathedral Measures' argument given how such legal documents routinely capitalise these kinds of words even when contemporary English style is otherwise. Anglicanus (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I do a lot of things on legal documents that I would never do on WP. That argument holds no water here. GregJackP Boomer! 20:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Chiming in with my support. An absurd amount of vanity capping is attempted in various forms on WP, and it needs to be nipped in the bud. It's particularly rampant with animal breeds, but I've found it very difficult to make any headway in that area. It often boils down to which sources are considered authoritative, and of course each side of the argument can claim whatever it wants in that regard. The Style Guide's "rule" is wishy-washy and untenable, as far as I'm concerned. Krychek (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)