Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41

THEBAND

In MOS:THEBAND it says lowercase the in things like "member of the Chicks". But what about if the name is used more like a title, "member of the band The Chicks"? Does it make sense to cap in that context? It doesn't say. Dicklyon (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Definitely lowercase. Popcornfud (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
That's what I've been doing, but I got some pushback, so worth checking. Maybe make it explicit. Dicklyon (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Personally I don't think there's anything extra here to be spelled out. I'm not sure what you mean by "using the name like a title" here — I don't see the example you give as distinct from any other construction... so-and-so is a member of the Chicks; so-and-so listens to the Chicks; so-and-so bought an album by the Chicks; etc. Popcornfud (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Yep! Lowercase the. Some people really feel attached to The, so they keep coming up with new twists, but the present rules are clear enough. SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Per others. Writing about the Chicks is not different from writing about the Beatles. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Lowercase. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
"Lowercase" - Good enough for the Beatles? good enough the Chicks. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

"Using the name like a title" is addressed in the example about the Beatles' so-called White Album, in which case "The Beatles", in italics without quotes, is correct whether at the beginning or in the middle of a sentence. But "the band the Beatles" is correct in using their name, which is not a title any more than your own name is. Allreet (talk) 07:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, I've done lowercase and gotten no more pushback so far. But I think people are not really seeing the point I'm making about the context. "A song by the Beatles" is clearly lowercase "the". But what about "a band called The Beatles" or "the group The Beatles", where it's clearly to be interpreted as a literal band name (not an album name or such)? If this is still to be lowercase, we ought to have an example like that that we can point to. Dicklyon (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I think in "a band called The Beatles" or "the group The Beatles" it's more reasonably with capitalized "The", as you use it here. The article is lowercased if the name is grammatically embedded in the whole sentence, but here it's not really embedded, but kinda quoted, with invisible quotation marks surrounding it, so capitalizing it makes sense. Gawaon (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I understand the distinction you're drawing, but I don't agree that the distinction is meaningful or that we need to worry about it. We don't cap "the" in constructions like "a building called the Eiffel Tower", "a country called the United States of America", "the hockey team the New York Rangers", etc. Why treat bands differently?
(I've said this a few times before, but something about capitalizing "the" in band names specifically causes people to lose their minds and I don't know why.) Popcornfud (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
The confusion for many is that "The" is often part of a band's full name, e.g., The Beatles and The Beat, and they're uncertain about the related grammar for using the names in a sentence. The rule or convention is to lower case "The": "When the Beatles landed in New York..." (That's been well covered.) Then there are groups whose names do not start with "The", e.g., Beastie Boys and Beirut. In a sentence, we have to add "the" before the Beasties Boys' name but not Beirut's. I don't know if there's a rule covering the latter, other than "what sounds right" in speech. Titles further complicate casing: The Story of The Beat (or ...the Beastie Boys) for a bio, The Best of Beirut (or ...The Beatles) for a compilation, and "A Talk with the Beasties" (or "...The Beat") for a magazine interview. Popcornfud, your examples and comments indicate you didn't understand our fellow editor's dilemmas and also the fact that not everyone has had the same background you did for knowing what to do the first time you had to handle each usage. Allreet (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Popcornfud, I checked the Chicks article and saw you cleared up the remaining issues. Very proactive, I must say. Dicklyon, I reviewed the article, and it seems all is in order. Complicating things was the change in the band's name, so I well understand the uncertainties along the way. I believe the concensus for using their former name for events prior to the change was correct. Another way this is handled is with a parenthetical: "When the Chicks (then, the Dixie Chicks) set out on their tour..." But that approach should be used very sparingly or it can be obtrusive. Allreet (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I was reverted on several other articles when I lowercase "the" in "...country band The Chicks...". I can understand an editor saying that this doesn't parse with the ordinary article "the" in that context, so needs to be capped as part of the band name. Just checking to see if there's support for that position. Looks like not. Dicklyon (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
In response to this, I believe you're correct unless, as I note below. the band's name was previously mentioned. That said, The Beatles page says the band was formerly known as "the Quarrymen", while The Quarrymen page says they were later called "the Beatles". I also checked my copy of The Beatles Anthology and it refers to the earlier group as The Quarry Men. So why is it you're confused?
Along the way I also noticed some titles of albums by "The" bands where "The" was lower cased within the title, and I kinda agree because the upper case can look odd, so apparently either is acceptable. In any case, I'm amending my earlier comments to say this: "The" at the start of a band's name is handled as the bands and publishers see fit. That doesn't help us much, except I'd go with either how sources cover the issues or what was already being done in the WP article, unless the article was a mess. In the scheme of things, none of this will lead to WWIII, though it does make our job more difficult and at times frustrating. Allreet (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's a more explicit example of the use in question: "Dixie Chicks and Lady Antebellum subsequently changed their names to The Chicks and Lady A respectively." Who would use lowercase "the Chicks" in that context? I would not. Maybe they need to italicized, for term as term? Dicklyon (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Judgment is sometimes called for depending on the situation. I agree with using a capital here if this is the first use of the name within the article. If the name "The Chicks" was introduced previously, then "the" is correct in the example you gave, otherwise readers have no way of knowing the band included "The" in their name. Allreet (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Based on conventions in WP and music encyclopedias I have, once "The" is established in a title, lower case can be used in subsequent occurences. Internet searches turn up instances where "The" isn't used at all, e.g., Vogue and Variety. An oddity: Britannica even lower cases "the" in the title. Based on this, "the" doesn't even need to be capitalized for the first ref to Dixie Chicks in WP's article (it's not). I know some of this is confusing, but I think the usages in the Chicks article are acceptable. Apologies for not being more thorough at the get. I'm going to strike out comments I've made that are clearly incorrect so as to not confuse others and draw attention to what now seems acceptable. Allreet (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Lowercase. Imagine if the Eiffel Tower was originally called the Foo Tower. The sentence would then be "The Foo Tower was renamed the Eiffel Tower." There would be no reason to cap "the", even if it was the first mention, that would be bizarre. Popcornfud (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
We have Eiffel Tower, but The Chicks. One has "The" as inherent part of the name, and the other doesn't, so not really an apt analogy. Dicklyon (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Yep, that's an inconsistency within Wikipedia, and a consistency I flagged above. We have Spice Girls and Rolling Stones, but The Beatles. Go figure.
In any case, the titles of Wikipedia articles should not be our guiding compass when figuring out how to capitalize. That's putting the cart before the horse. Popcornfud (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Running prose is running prose even in the sentence "the band the Beatles". No reason to change the guidance at MOS:THEMUSIC. Don't over-capitalize. Binksternet (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

"Official" names in lead differing only in capitalization

On a recently moved article, the lead says "The Australian Aboriginal flag (official name Australian Aboriginal Flag)...". Is this useful, showing a slightly different styling in the lead? Dicklyon (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

No, I'd call that trivial, personally. Popcornfud (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, such a minor difference is not worth mentioning. Gawaon (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Errantios: (who did this at Australian Aboriginal flag) what do you think? Dicklyon (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It is certainly not a matter of 'styling'. The flag's official status, like that of the Torres Strait Islander flag/Flag, is of historic importance in the long and bitterly contentious process of Australian national recognition of Indigenous peoples. For background, see for example Australian frontier wars and 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum. Errantios (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
That the flag is official is stated in the first sentence anyway, but which case form is used in official documents is entirely irrelevant for the article. Gawaon (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Not worth mentioning. Government sources are known to overcap. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Founding Fathers of the United States

Just seeking a quick litmus check, but “Founding Fathers” and “Framers” should not be capitalized as often as they are, right? — HTGS (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Personally, I might also sometimes put "founding fathers" in quotes when introducing the term, since that is merely what some people are sometimes called – it is neither a neutral description nor a well-defined category of people. I find it egregious that Founding Fathers redirects to Founding Fathers of the United States, while Founding fathers redirects to List of national founders – as if the United States has a special claim to the capital letter, although that was apparently the conclusion of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 17#Founding Fathers. I agree with Allreet who said "Regarding the capitalization of founding father, IMO this is an artifice without any particular meaning" in the discussions at Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States. That article even capitalizes "Founders" in many places when it is not accompanied by "Fathers". This seems like pure capitalization-to-indicate-importance and promotion of the American perspective, which Wikipedia claims not to do. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, that jives roughly with how I would see it.
Ping @Randy Kryn, just hold up before you start changing any more (I swear I’m not following you, but I saw your recent change on Letter and spirit of the law) — HTGS (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Uppercasing, it's literally the name of the article. The proper name of the group as a whole and individually. "Framers" is also a proper name with a specific meaning (the drafters and signers of the United States Constitution). HTGS, I did not see this discussion before you pinged, so I'm glad you noticed my edit and made me aware of it. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
"Founding Fathers" is a historical title, so it should be capitalized per MOS:PEOPLETITLES. "Founding fathers", in lowercase, refers to the generic term. See United States Declaration of Independence vs. Declaration of independence, and American Civil War vs. Civil war. Arguing "Founding Fathers" is not a proper name is like arguing the Declaration of Independence and Civil War should not be capitalized. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree that "Founding Father(s)" as the historical title must be capitalized, but I don't think that there's such a thing as a "founding father" as a generic term. That would rather just be a "founder". The "fatherhood" is metaphorical in this title, not real. Gawaon (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
...I don't think that there's such a thing as a "founding father" as a generic term: Perhaps all the more reason to capitalize it—if the term is to be used at all—as it differs from the plain English, lowercase term, or the lowercase English makes no sense at all. —Bagumba (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
There most certainly is such a generic term. See the example given for the second definition here: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/founding-father I have come across many such uses for various individuals who established something. Heck, we cite an article (from The Guardian, no less) with such a usage in our own article on Gary Gygax. See reference 22 on that page: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/mar/07/games?gusrc=rss&feed=technology --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
OK, but I'd still say the term should be consistently capitalized when referring to the Founding Fathers of the US (from where the generic usage stems, I'd suspect). Gawaon (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, founding father is in Merriam-Webster (partially striking my comment above); moreover, it says about the prper noun:

often capitalized both Fs : a leading figure in the founding of the U.S.
specifically : a member of the American Constitutional Convention of 1787[1]

—Bagumba (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
According to the lead section of the article on the subject, Founding Fathers of the United States does not refer just to "the drafters and signers of the United States Constitution". It also refers to "others". Maybe it's also the signers of the Declaration of Independence, or maybe it's just seven people. There is no single well-accepted definition. Maybe it's also signers of the Articles of Confederation. Maybe Paul Revere belongs in there too. Maybe John Paul Jones ... Everyone can choose their own definition. It's not a formal title. According to the discussion of the history of the term, the term didn't even exist until the 1900s. Even if it was a well-defined category of people, that wouldn't mean we should capitalize it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The Founding Fathers are not only the drafters and signers of the Constitution (who are separately also called 'Framers') but certainly the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation and specific others (such as a major participant in the early founding, John Jay, who did not sign any of the founding documents). The lead, and the list of founders, has been worked out over many years and many discussions. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
That reinforces my point. Obviously, there is no one correct list of "Founding Fathers". Different people use the term to refer to different people. It's subjective. Wikipedia consensus does not establish a definitive list, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source and Wikipedia consensus can change. Off-Wikipedia, different people say different things, and typically use the term rather loosely. It's a classification, and classifications – especially loosely defined ones – are common nouns, not proper nouns. Proper nouns are very rarely plural. The term is not consistently capitalized in sources, per NGram results. It is often capitalized, but not consistently capitalized. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The list is up-to-date, accurate, and sourced. The signers of the Declaration, the Articles, and the Constitution are accepted as founders, as are John Jay and many others who didn't sign the documents (some actually voted for them but didn't sign for various reasons). There is agreement on the who and what, and nothing is loosely defined. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
"often expanded to include ... Some scholars regard ... some historians include ... Beyond this, the criteria for inclusion vary. Historians with an expanded view of the list of Founding Fathers include ...." That doesn't sound like agreement, to me. In fact, that is almost a perfect description of "loosely defined".--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Actually, it's poor wording with a tad of SYNTH. Better would have been to find a couple sources who address the divide over candidates and paraphrase their views. Yes, the title is "loosely defined" or perhaps not at all. That said, the "claim to the throne", as far as we're concerned, depends on sources, many, many of whom recognize the 100-plus delegates associated with the Declaration and Constitution. Beyond that is where concurrence parts. But I think we pretty much all agree on two things—that it is a title and it does mean something fairly well (if not perfectly) understood by those familiar with U.S. history. Allreet (talk) 10:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
@BarrelProof: Thanks for alerting me. I agree with what I said two years ago—that the capitalization of Founding Fathers is an artifice. So is the term itself, though I don't mean that pejoratively as such. Where I disagree (with myself) is that I now consider the coinage and its stylization useful in referring to those who contributed to the Revolution's success and the Constitution's framing, especially in print. As for conceits, nobody is making a "special claim" to the capitalization other than the scholars who have embraced it. While a few do go out of their way to avoid the term entirely, it has become part of the vernacular with the caps a step or so behind. Meanwhile, the only substantial disagreement I see is over the numbers, which is also not for us to decide. Allreet (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
  • As with things like “President”, I tend to see this as: “Sure, it is overly capitalized… but downcasing upsets a lot of editors, and causes so many endless arguments that it isn’t worth the effort to correct.” Sometimes it’s better to let the wookie win. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Founding fathers is not inherently a proper name|noun but a descriptive term applied in the US context for those that "fathered" (founded) the new nation. They are not a group "indivisible". There are differences of opinion as to who should be so considered, although the core of the group is generally agreed. Ngrams do not indicate the term is consistently capitalised in sources, even when confined to American sources here. While founding fathers may be used in other contexts, a search of google books here would show that the term is used predominantly in the context of founding the US. Context is also confirmed here and here. Descriptive terms are often capitalised for emphasis, importance or distinction to indicate a particular meaning in context (ie a term of art). Per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS, we do not capitalise for this reason. A common name (appellative) is made specific by use of the definite article (the) while "generic" uses are indicated by an indefinite article. While terms like United States Declaration of Independence (see here), the American Civil War (here) or the Battle of the Bulge (see here) are descriptive noun phrases, they are capitalised with near universal consistency in sources. The specific v generic argument is one of capitalisation for significance or importance falling to MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. Per MOS:CAPS (through WP:AT and WP:NCCAPS, we would only capitalise such a case if it were consistently capitalised in sources. The evidence presented, including the Merriam-Webster definition cited above, shows that this is not consistently capped in sources and therefore, should not be capped here. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
The dictionary sources uppercase as common alternate. The uppercased proper name is the common name for the Founding Fathers, and has been used for well over a century in books, speeches, honors, and related circumstance. This is almost ridiculous to have to argue, and on top of everything else if you and others use the excuse of "total-consistency-or-bust" then the policy WP:IAR takes precedence. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Randy Kryn, often would mean frequently [2] as opposed to more often than not, which would mean a majority but does convey a sense of the magnitude of the majority. Often does not mean a substantial majority (per MOS:CAPS. The evidence would indicate that founding fathers is capitalised about half the time (more or less) in this context. That is not a substantial majority. I referred to the near universal consistency in sources in reference to what we see in cases like United States Declaration of Independence, the American Civil War and Battle of the Bulge because an argument by analogy was made in reference to the first two terms. My rebuttal is that the examples are not analogous because the near universal consistency of capitalisation in sources for these terms is nowhere close to the very mixed capitalisation we see for founding fathers in this US context. I would say that the guidance given by MOS:CAPS would require a very high degree of capitalisation approaching what we see in these other examples before we consider that capitalisation is necessary (per MOS:CAPS) but to say my comment argues "total-consistency-or-bust" would be a misrepresentation and consequently uncivil - as is the use of pejorative terms (excuse), when based on a misrepresentation. It is one thing to substantiate and then declare an argument nonsense. It is quite another to ridicule an argument without substantiation or on the basis of a misrepresentation. To say The uppercased proper name is the common name for the Founding Fathers, and has been used for well over a century in books, speeches, honors, and related circumstance. is an assertion made contrary to the evidence presented and a fallacious argumentum ad antiquitatem. If this is a strongly held tradition, it would be reflected in sources by consistent capitalisation. It is not. You invoked WP:IAR in a similar discussion here and, from the closers comments, that argument swam like a rock. Invoking WP:IAR again here in the same way would then appear to be a disingenuous abuse of the policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinderella157 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Also, total consistency exists nowhere, and if that was the requirement, Wikipedia wouldn't use any capital letters. So let's capitalize "Founding Fathers (of the US)", as most sources do. In other contexts, lowercase "founding fathers" (e.g. of the EU) is probably adequate. Gawaon (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Asserting that I or others would argue for total consistency is reductio ad absurdum. If most sources was a substantial majority of sources then there would be a case for capitalising the term per MOS:CAPS. However, the evidence presented is that the capitalisation in this context is very mixed. Also, the ngram for founding fathers of the US shows that contemporary usage has near equal capitalisation. There is no good case for its capitalisation base on the preavailing WP:P&G and the evidence. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Very similar statistics for "founding fathers of the United". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Fine, we might lower-case it then. I don't care much one way or the other, as long as our own usage is consistent. Gawaon (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Instead of looking at "sources", which follow different style guides, how about we look at different dictionaries instead? Merriam-Webster: capital F's. Oxford, Cambridge: capital F's. Collins, American Heritage, Oxford Learner's, Longman, New Oxford American Dictionary, The Free Dictionary, Britannica, Dictionary.com, Wiktionary: capital F's. The U.S. government's style guide specifically says to use capital letters. Numbers and ngrams don't tell us everything... InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I think capitalized Founding Fathers is appropriate to distinguish those credited with founding the US and its constitution from generic founding fathers. However, a full discriptive term like founding fathers of the United States is not ambiguous with "of the United States", so capitalization is not essential to distinguish its context. —Bagumba (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that's what the dictionaries say. Cambridge and The Free Dictionary specifically use Founding Fathers of the United States as an example sentence; Collins specifically labels it as a proper noun. Alternatively, we could invoke WP:DIFFCAPS and move Founding Fathers of the United States to Founding Fathers (which already redirects there), but I doubt an RM would be uncontroversial. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
My only point was that readers will identify the same topic with either founding fathers of the United States or Founding Fathers of the United States. Capitalization is not essential for comprehension in this case. So it's more an issue of style than understanding, so defer to MOS:CAPS and whether it is "consistently capitalized". —Bagumba (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
BarrelProof and Cinderella157, et al: Disagree with suggestions to go for lower case. The statistical graphs prove nothing in terms of quality. What's relevant is the significance of the authors and their works. Here's a partial list of leading scholars from the late 1940s through the 2020s who favor Founding Fathers. In parentheses are the institutions where they teach or taught, followed by years of publication. I haven't researched or dated every book by these academics, just enough to be sure of their preferences, as well as the regard for their writings.
Douglass Adair (Princeton/William & Mary) 70s; Akhil Reed Amar (Yale) 90s-20s; Raoul Berger (Berkeley/Harvard Law) 70s-80s; Richard B. Bernstein (NY Law School/City College) 90s-00s; Richard J. Bernstein (Haverford/New School) 80s-90s; John E. Ferling (U of West Georgia); Richard Hofstadter (Columbia) 40s-70s; Jonathan Israel (Princeton/University College London) 10s; Michael J. Klarman (Harvard) 10s; Franklin T. Lambert (Purdue) 00s; Richard B. Morris (Columbia/City College) 60s-70s; Saul K. Padover (New School) 50s; David Sehat (Georgia State/Oxford) 10s; Gordon S. Wood (Brown) 90s-00s. By contrast, so far I've found just a handful of notable academics/authors who either use lower case or avoid the two-word term entirely. All of which confirms what I said above, though I realize more such analysis would be needed to satisfy others.
In response to critiques of the FF article's content: Most of the information is rock solid and well-sourced. I'm not as happy with how some things are expressed (particularly the section on slavery), but please, let's stick with the subject. Allreet (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Another round. I'm actually not running into many ff's among leading academics/historians. In fact, Walter Isaacson is the only one today. So I'm stopping at L in a separate bibliography I've kept: Bruce Ackerman (Yale) 90s-10s; Stephen Ambrose (U of Chicago) 60s-90s; Bernard Bailyn (Harvard) 50s-10s; Richard Beeman (U of Pa) 70s; Daniel Boorstin (National Archivist) 40s-90s; I. Bernard Cohen (Harvard) 50s-90s; John Patrick Diggins (U of Calf-Irvine/Princeton) 70s-10s; Joseph J. Ellis (Mount Holyoke) 70s-20s; William M. Fowler (Northeastern) 70s-10s; David Lefer (NYU) 00s-10s.
To this I'd add: Founders Online, the National Archives site for the papers of Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, etc. Encyclopædia Britannica. InfiniteNexus's marvelous find of the United States Government Publishing Office Style Manual. And a non-historian, NPR's Cokie Roberts who wrote Founding Mothers, which abounds with Founding Fathers. Allreet (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
More: Ira Berlin (U of Md) 70s-10s; Edward Countryman (Yale/Cambridge) 80s-10s; David Brion Davis (Yale) 50s-10s; Seymour Drescher (U of Pittsburgh) 70s-00s; Paul Finkelman (8 law schools, 50 books) 80s-10s; William W. Freehling (Berkeley/Harvard) 90s-10s; Henry Louis Gates, Jr. (Harvard) 80s-20s; Eugene Genovese (Rutgers/U of Rochester) 60s-10s; Annette Gordon-Reed (Harvard) 90s-20s; Woody Holton (U of S Carolina) 90s-20s; Peter Kolchin (U of Del) 70s-90s; James Oakes (CUNY) 80s-20s; Nell Irvin Painter (Princeton) 70s-10s; Sean Wilentz (Princeton) 80s-10s
The 40 or so I've posted represent a decent sampling of leading American scholars. The ratio of FFs versus ffs was 5:1. Of course, my survey was not "scientific", just haphazardly random, except it was confined to three bibliographies (Founders, Slavery, Constitution) and to authors with wikilinks. It was also done without prejudice. Allreet (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
MOS:CAPS would tell us to capitalise when consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources [generally]. Also, because English is an evolving language, we are interested in contemporary usage, not how things were done fifty or on hundred years ago. This is a question of style not content. MOS:CAPS does not favour specialist sources. The only stipulation is that they are independent and reliable (ie there is evidence of editorial oversight). The criteria posed by MOS:CAPS is essentially a statistical question and any sample must be a representative sample of usage in general. Relying on specialist sources is subject to WP:SSF, a documented phenomenon, and is not a representative sample of general usage. Some of the samples are also not representative of contemporary usage. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
"MOS caps would tell us...", it's not a religious text for Wales' sake. Allreet has done a yeoman's job of researching the major texts and historians pertinent to this subject, and his studied and professional research is the best thing to come from this discussion. Maybe an applause template instead of a legalese approach. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Most of the scholars I cited are from the 10s and 20s, as I noted, though many started earlier but are still active. In any case, these academics tend to write for a general audience (they hope to sell books), and by a substantial margin, they prefer caps. Meanwhile, nothing about this is specialized. We're covering basic American history. As for reliability, exactly what sources are ngrams sampling? Pray tell it's not looking at everything, which would mean usage should be determined without any concern for editorial oversight. Which leads me to this point: language is decidedly not a statistical question, and I doubt our criteria suggests it is. Allreet (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Further evidence. I have already mentioned ngram evidence for founding fathers and that a search of google books confirms that the seach term primarily refers to the US context. Ngram searches can be contexturalised to some extent within the five word search phrase limit of ngrams. This search for founding fathers of the US, this search for fathers of the United States and this search for founding fathers of the United confirm context and that the term is not consistently capitalised. This ngram would confirm that the results for founding fathers predominantly refer to the US context. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I just skimmed over this wall of text, but the issue seems to have split into two parts -- Whether the term Founding Fathers should be capitalized, and as to whom should be included in a list of founders. While the inclusion list can vary a bit, depending on the sources and so forth, the term Founding Fathers is a proper and definitive term and as such should be capitalized, at it is not some whimsical loose term, but primarily refers to the signers, representatives of the various colony/states, of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Unless there is some pressing reason for the change in question, and I see none here, we should leave this long standing title as it is. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
    Dictionary sources (not all) specifically refer to FF as a proper, capitalized name. Some other examples where usage won the day, though for various reasons because of the nature of the phrases: First Lady, Stars and Stripes, Mother Nature, Down Under, Top 40, Bloody Mary, and Third World. For whatever reason, the NY Times ditched the caps in FF in 1999, but talk about arbitrary, it still uses courtesy titles such as Mr. and Mrs. in second references, for example, Vice President Kamala Harris and then Mrs. Harris, which virtually nobody else does. Also regarding arbitrary, WP accommodates differences between British and U.S. spellings so that readers see capitalise in one article and capitalize in another. The reasons are known to us, but readers must find it strange. So must our spell checker since I'm now seeing it flag the former but not the latter, though maybe the British version does the opposite. Then again, I spell alright...Allreet (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Re: The argument that the term Founding Fathers is not "consistently capitalized" in the sources. This is very misleading, because the fact is, nearly all the reliable sources have this term, both words, capitalized. A quick perusal at archive.org and google, not to mention the sources used in the article in question, readily demonstrate this, so I'm compelled to ask, what was the motive for starting this conference?. I ask, because on the user page of the editor who started this discussion, it says "Follow the sources. For 99% of disputes about what an article should say or how it should say it, the answer is to say what reliable sources say." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The idea of not being "consistently capitalized" has already been addressed. Nearly all reliable sources have this term capitalized, and for reasons that have been well articulated. Can anyone cite one prominent scholar who doesn't capitalize? It seems that all we're seeing here is the typical WP:IDHT. Please review Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Scholarship. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Why do we only need to count "prominent scholars"? A quick google reviews lots of lowercase examples from CNN, BBC, Guardian, etc. These are reliable secondary sources commonly used on Wikipedia. Popcornfud (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
When it comes to history, scholarship are the best sources to be used. News articles are more suited for current events and so forth. Anytime a news source talks about history it's usually an editorial or some opinion piece, which are not reliable for statements of fact. Please review: WP:NEWSORG As already explained, most google sources use capitals, including National Archives, History.com, Encyclopedia Britannica, WorldAtlas, etc, and nearly all historical works found at archive.org used capitals. Again, all the sources used in the article use capitals. Also, please review Reliable sources: Prefer secondary sources and Reliable sources:Reliable scholarship. We can't ignore all this scholarship because a few news sources use the term in lower case. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anything in MOS:CAPS, or the policies you cite there, that tells us we should discount some types of reliable sources when deciding whether to capitalize.
To me this sounds like the specialized style fallacy:
The faulty reasoning behind the fallacy of specialized style is this: because the specialized literature on a topic is (usually) the most reliable source of detailed facts about the specialty, such as we might cite in a topical article, it must also be the most reliable source for deciding how Wikipedia should title or style articles about the topic and things within its scope. Popcornfud (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
You quoted an opinion essay, not WP policy. Several cases were cited where scholarship is preferred over news, and the attempt to hold news articles above the scholarship, which is how the article is sourced, not to mention all history articles, presents its own fallacy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't hold any source over any other when trying to determine if we should capitalize — as long as it's a reliable secondary source then it's fair game. And if the term isn't capped in substantial majority of those sources, then we don't cap. That seems to be what MOS:CAPS says. Popcornfud (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
The next sentence of the essay seems to separate the fallacy from the issue at hand:
This fallacy is used to attempt to justify a "local consensus" of specializing editors, often a wikiproject, for specialized-sourced article naming and styling that other editors and readers (often not unfamiliar with the field) find strange, impenetrable, inappropriate, and/or grammatically incorrect.
The quote's closing words would not occur to anyone reading the 40 leading scholars I cited, 80% of those reviewed. In fact, most people seeing "Founding Fathers" in their works wouldn't raise an eyebrow but would accept the capitalization as something they've come across many times before, though no doubt with some variance. And I say this as an editor with two years' background in researching the founding. So I'm hardly a specialist, nor do I consider the aspects of American history we're covering to be beyond anyone's reach. Allreet (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This is what it says at the top of the essay you cited: "This is an essay on the Wikipedia:Article titles policy", As you pointed out,  " if the term isn't capped in substantial majority of those sources, then we don't cap. " Once again, the greater majority of sources use capitals. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Founding Fathers: compromise?

In pursuit of a compromise, can we perhaps say that the full term Founding Fathers of the United States can remain capitalized, as it is in most settings, at least for now, but we can down-case where the full title isn’t used like … the founding fathers later agreed… or the similar framers, and especially in the singular … John Adams, also a founding father, …. If you’re in agreement (or disagreement), let’s take a quick straw poll and we can maybe just move on? — HTGS (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Seeking compromise is laudable, but sad to say, that doesn't make sense. Whichever capitalization rule we adapt, we must follow it consistently, otherwise everyone would be confused. (Of course, other terms like "framers" or "founders" are not to be capitalized, but that's not the issue here.) Gawaon (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Why would we do that? According to 99% of dictionaries, the term is a proper noun and always capitalized. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
So is Founding Father a title akin to Pope, always capitalized? Because I can’t figure out how it makes sense within the MOS style guide otherwise. (I know that sounds like I’m sure of the answer, but genuine explanation would be appreciated.) — HTGS (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes. I've linked several dictionaries above; all say that it should be capitalized as a proper noun. We actually don't capitalize "Pope" because it's a common noun, but MOS:JOBTITLES gives when a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the King, not the king (referring to Charles III); the Pope, not the pope (referring to Francis) as an exemption. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
So it’s more like Members of Parliament, which is also unanimously capitalized in dictionaries? That makes sense, I guess. — HTGS (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Gawaon on consistency and with InfiniteNexus's point on dictionaries. Most leading scholars, as I found in the rough survey I did, treat it as a proper noun. I suspect this reflects the style of their publishers, also a notable bunch. Needless to say, I think it a "capital" idea to bring other articles in line. BTW, nearly all WP bios on FFs already use caps, but from there, it's a mixed bag. Allreet (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Stats from sources don't support capitalization

See book n-gram stats, where "founding fathers of the United" is running about even with "Founding Fathers of the United" (sorry, stats only go up to 5-grams). This suggests that the term is not consistently capitalized in sources. So why are people wanting to cap it in WP? Dicklyon (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Also these stats with "fathers of the United States" and "Fathers of the United States" makes it pretty clear what the 6-grams would look like. Dicklyon (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Why start another section, unless you want your voice shouting to the rooftops "I decree that less respect is called for"? Please move this comment to the discussion. Ngram games using numbers and word-arrangements does not negate consistency among scholars, proven above, which holds more practical weight than all the tea in Boston harbor. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Randy, it seemed like things were going off the rails, ignoring general sources (e.g. in the proposed "compromise" in the subsection above), so I thought I'd try to bring it back. Thanks for noticing. Dicklyon (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Dicklyon, in answer to your question about why: Because a significant majority of academics and their publishers concur on the capitalization. The usage, then, is consistent though of course not universal. There's also nothing to suggest the expression and its form are technical or arcane. The argument about specialization being raised here is a "technicality" in itself, meaning it sounds good but is totally irrelevant. The acceptance of ngrams for determining correctness is similarly specious, since the sampling takes into account all the "lowest common denominators" in American and other English language usage. In short, the stats are generated without any standards to connect it with our criteria. Allreet (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Is there something in guidelines about preferring "academics" above general sources? I haven't seen that. Dicklyon (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Dicklyon, thanks for asking. Our guidelines do address it. For example, if you search WP:Reliable sources for "scholar" and "academic", you'll find 40+ references, nearly all of which suggest "academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." WP:Verifiabilty says exactly the same. Both articles also provide an order of preference with academic and college-level texts at the top and magazines and newspapers further down. That's not a hard-and-fast "rule", meaning we're not required to give priority to one over the other. But if you peruse our history articles, their citations, and the related bibliographies, we actually do, by an overwhelming margin, and our articles are better for it.
As for the claim that n-grams draw on "general sources" and therefore, reflect "general usage", we have no idea as to the identity, reliability, availability, and other factors tied to the works being surveyed. Even if we knew, n-grams cannot be used as a source for anything, except when cited by reliable published sources. The guideline here would be WP:No original research, which at the outset describes OR as "analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." Accordingly, Google's search engine has no legitimate role in WP, in our articles or on our talk pages. Allreet (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I'd argue that when determining capitalization of things that are not trademarks, dictionaries and external style guides seem like more reasonable sources to consult than news publications and academic journals. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
NY Times favors lower case but suggests using synonyms like founders and colonists. The latter is incorrect since no colonists were founders. Government Publishing Manual favors upper case. AP refers readers to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate. Chicago Manual is silent. Those are the majors. Allreet (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Examples of capitalization for 'US' Founding Fathers occurs in nearly all reliable and scholarly sources

  • Agree with Allreet and Randy Kryn, and others. — The chart that was offered is a mixed bag of nuts and includes text that concerns founding fathers in dozens of different countries -- those whose citizens don't even employ that term to define those who founded their country. In any case, a quick perusal of the examples shows capitalization is quite prevalent throughout. "So why are people wanting to cap it in WP"? -- Because it is a proper title given to the representatives in the First Continental Congress and the Second Continental Congress, most of whom debated and signed the Constitution, and because, once again, it is used by all the scholarly sources as citations in the Founding Fathers article itself, and again, occurs consistently in scholarly sources at archive.org and elsewhere. All things considered, simply citing the exceptions, such as they are, by themselves, are not grounds to omit capitalization here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
    If by "the chart that was offered" you mean this n-gram graph I linked, the point is that while there are many uses of the terms "founding fathers", the ones about the United States dominate, and are only 50% capped. The other ones there are not about the same topic, but give some idea how the words have mixed capitalization in other contexts, too. It's not clear where you get the impression that "capitalization is quite prevalent throughout". I'm not citing exceptions, but rather looking at the bulk of general, as opposed to specialized/academic, sources. Dicklyon (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
That's not what I'm seeing. In any case, "specialized academic sources" are what the article is based on, and cited with. Even if there's an even 50-50 split with your chart, that is hardly grounds to remove capitalization, for various reasons explained by several editors more than once, none of which have been addressed. All we have for the argument not to capitalize is that some sources do, some don't, while virtually all the scholarly sources capitalize. If you can find equivalent scholarly sources that don't capitalize to replace the ones currently used in the article, then the current argument not to capitalize might begin to gain some real weight. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The heading of this subsection is contradicted by the data in the previous subsection. A 50-50 split would certainly be an indication that we'd use lowercase, per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Simply looking at numbers and ngrams does not tell us everything. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, far from it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
It strikes me as obvious that academics would be a decidedly tiny minority compared to those who write for general consumption. Yet equally obvious, scholars are far more reliable as sources on historical matters, including appropriate usage. Allreet (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Allreet. — We can't ignore the most reliable sources, scholars, and as said, the article in question employs such sources throughout. Re this statement:  "A 50-50 split would certainly be an indication that we'd use lowercase...".  "certainly"?  This is simply a POV with nothing else to support it -- and it hasn't been established that there is indeed a 50-50 split in the first place. Given that statement, it could also be asserted that, since there is 50-50 split this would certainly be an indication that we'd use uppercase. That would be equally unsubstantive by itself. Again, the reliable sources used throughout the article use upper case. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like you haven't had a glance at the leads of MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS yet ("only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia" and "leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence"). Dicklyon (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, there is a substantial majority of reliable scholarly sources that capitalize. We've only look to the article in question to see this demonstrated in the sources used, several of them Pulitzer Prize winners. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I have no doubt that a narrow majority of English language books favors lower case, but have no idea regarding the reliability of the works analyzed. Meanwhile, based on the 5:1 ratio I'm finding — I've now searched 70 sources on the subject — it appears our FF articles do conform with the WP:MOSCAPS guidelines. The only way I can see to prove otherwise is to confirm something that ngrams can't tell us at this point: the reliability of relevant books in the Google corpus. Allreet (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, and again, all the top scholarly sources used in that article employ capitalization throughout -- a fact that trumps all other lesser considerations. We say what the most credible sources say.
Aside from Founders like Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, etc, the list of other Founders can vary, a small bit, but the fact remains, Founding Fathers is nonetheless a proper title, as are titles like Congress, Senate, i.e. bodies of a specific class of people who act(ed) in an official capacity.   e.g. He was a member of the Senate, or a member of Congress. If someone can provide a comparable list of equally reliable sources, reliable beyond a doubt, that don't use capitalization, then, again, the argument to not capitalize might begin to assume a little weight. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Time to move on

More than 6,000 words have been offered since the issue was raised 20 days ago. Best I can tell, over the past 10, no new arguments have been introduced. It appears time, then, to leave the status quo in place (FF capitalized) or seek a broader consensus for changing it. Without rehashing previous comments beyond the briefest of summaries, what say you all? Please use [ edit ] next to the sub-header rather than [ reply ] and begin your input with a bullet (asterisk) since indentation etc. makes things more difficult to follow. Pings, with apologies if I've missed anyone: Bagumba, BarrelProof, Blueboar, Dicklyon, Gawaon, Gwillhickers, HTGS, InfiniteNexus, Khajidha, Popcornfud, Randy Kryn, and Tony1 — Allreet (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  • Status quo is fine with me. Gawaon (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I don’t actually care that much. Treat it the same as Members of Parliament (or Members of Congress) and it makes sense to me. — HTGS (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  • FYI, Allreet, if you're trying to ping editors, you need to use (curly) braces, not (square) brackets. That just creates a link to the article for the letter u. Secondly, I actually have the Reply tool turned off for this reason (like VE, it's very limited and inflexible), so I don't even see the [reply] button. Anyway, I think the consensus or lack thereof is pretty clear above. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
This notice really belongs on Allreet's Talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Shall do. Brain f*rt. Th*nks. Allreet (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Strange comment. No it doesn't... InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I was referring more to your comment but saw a benefit to Gwillhickers's, that is, the idea of inviting input from editors who may have missed our discussion. So I did add a post to my Talk page, even though I wasn't required to. Thanks to both. Allreet (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I think you may be confused on how to correctly read indentation. Gwillhickers' comment was indented one level below mine, so he was replying and referring to my comment. In other words, he believes that my comment should have been posted on your talk page. My comment was indented one level below theirs, the same level as yours, which means I am replying and referring to their comment and not yours. In other words, I find their comment strange and pedantic. You can learn more at WP:THREAD. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I think I’m coming to see why so much ink was spilled above… — HTGS (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
  • If I were writing for myself, I would not let personal preferences determine the presentation but would say what the abundance of the best scholarly sources say. Since we are not writing for ourselves but for WP that is the correct way to make such decisions, per WP policy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
  • There can be legitimate disagreement about some points you are trying to rub in. Please leave it alone. The consensus has been acknowledged, so you don't need to keep poking. Don't be a sore winner. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Please refrain from accusations and personal attacks. I was not at all "sore" about winning, if indeed we have.  My only concern was that in RFC's, and other such conferences, opinion too often tends to ignore policy or viable points made during the course of discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Clarifying sources

My BOLD edit clarifying what "sources" can mean was reverted. I don't think this is a controversial addition, nor is it a substantive change. But, sure, let's discuss first. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems a bit strange, since the previous sentence already refers to "reliable sources", which is a well-defined term in Wikipedia and includes journals and newspapers, at least in general – so why does your sentence seem to exclude them? And why indeed would it be necessary to repeat what RS are? Gawaon (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Because every time I come across a discussion about capitalization, and people present evidence from "sources", it's almost exclusively ngrams and news articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Does anyone else object to adding these ten words for reasons that are not needlessly bureaucratic? InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't see how it's necessary. If you try to enumerate sources, best include scholarly articles, too. Or maybe just say that random web pages are not usually good sources. Sometimes people object to book examples of usage on the basis that the book is about gambling (e.g. in a sports context), or is a children's book; to me, these are still valid datapoints about usage in independent sources, whether or not they'd be reliable for content. I don't think we can try to pin this down one way or another without considerable discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Online username: CAP1TAL or Cap1tal?

The Twitch streamer/YouTuber F1NN5TER recently has a page created about them, but the capitalization of their page matches their spelling of their screen name on Twitch, Twitter, among other places. However, the name has no reason to be in all-caps as it is not an acronym or initialism. It is the nickname "Finnster", but with numbers and all-caps. I believe it should be "F1nn5ter", in keeping with several other (mostly music acts/songs) that are spelled in all-caps in as many places as possible, notably MF Doom, JPEGMafia, Crim3s, Hori7on, and 4Eve, but there's not many other pages that deal with all-caps online usernames. Discussion on it here: Talk:F1NN5TER#Capitalization Phillycj 23:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

"Stylized in all caps" is for cases where the formal spelling of a name is not in all caps. To use the phrase in any other context is original research: We can't say that "F1NN5TER" is a stylization of "F1nn5ter" because no reliable sources say that. This is a screen name, so it has no official spelling (unlike, say, the trademarked sentence-case name of a company). We can only go on how it is spelled by the subject (AFAIK, always in all caps, except when not possible due to technical limitations), and how it is spelled by independent reliable sources (in all caps in a significant majority).
This is borne out in MoS. There's not actually anything in MOS:BIO or the main MoS page about applying the "stylization" doctrine to people's names or pseudonyms, but (a bit confusingly) there's something in MOS:TMRULES: "When a name is almost never written except in a particular stylized form, use that form on Wikipedia: Deadmau5 [...] but Kesha not Ke$ha". If we suppose that that does apply even in a case where a pseudonym isn't trademarked, then this becomes a fact-bound question based on how sources refer to F1NN5TER, which can be resolved on the article's talkpage. If we say it doesn't apply, then the only governing rule is MOS:ALLCAPS, which doesn't apply because the difference in capitalization in a screen name is not purely stylistic, and which, with the exception of trademarks, otherwise concerns itself with cases where a term would normally be sentence-cased but might in a quote be all-caps. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 05:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
MOS:TM is clear in its lead that it applies to everything that is generally trademark-like, not just that which is legally subject to a trademark, so its material on Deadmau5 vs. Ke$ha is applicable here. And MOS:BIO explicitly refers to this material for "unusual name presentations, usually in the sphere of performer marketing", which this subject clearly qualifies under. If F1NN5TER is virtually always rendered F1NN5TER not F1nn5ter in independent sources, then it should be rendered that way here. If "a substantial majority" of such sources don't render it that way, and F1nn5ter is common enough, then we should use F1nn5ter. (I remain skeptical in this case, because the vast majority of user login systems on social media and related sites are not case-sensitive. The MoS default is always to use lower-case unless the substantial-majority upper-case usage in indy sources is proven.) The OP is correct in that this is pretty much the same sort of case as various bands and such; but the specific examples cited have ended up at non-ALLCAPS names here because the source usage is demonstrably mixed in their cases, not because they form some kind of special class. Unusual casing is permitted on WP, when it overwhelmingly dominates in the source material (e.g. danah boyd, k.d. lang, though the latter is getting more dubious over time, as fewer sources today go with the all-lowercase, or the unspaced initials, than did back in the day; but contrast this with CCH Pounder who is usually rendered that way – no dots or spaces in initials – and has published a stated preference for it – WP:ABOUTSELF does matter, but the preference has to be reflected in indy sources, per WP:SPNC, with more weight given to sources that post-date the change or, by logical extension, the publication of the preference statement).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Capping the levels

What about GCE Ordinary Level, A-level, Scholarship level, Singapore-Cambridge GCE Advanced Level, GCE Advanced Level (United Kingdom), Advanced Subsidiary level, Technical Level, and such? Is there logic behind the mix of caps, or something we need to work on? Dicklyon (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Any opinions here one way or the other? Are any of these properly capitalized, or should I fix them all to lowercase like in Scholarship level and A-level? Also lowercase scholarship and advanced and such in sentences? Dicklyon (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Lower-case would be consistent with MOS:DOCTCAPS and MOS:SIGCAPS, as the default, but we'd use upper-case if the capitalization is near-consistently found in indepedent RS material (i.e. independent of the school systems, testing bodies, governments, etc., at issue in each of these). It may vary by case. I don't live in a country that uses these terms, and most of my encountering of them has been in material that doesn't pass WP:INDY, so it's hard to say. This is kind of half-way between the general principle of not capitalizing any academic subjects and categories on the one hand except where the contain proper names ("African studies", "particle physics", "third grade", "high school", etc.), versus the desire of some editors to capitalize all professional certifications on the other ("Certified Public Accountant", etc.). The latter practice does not have a clear consensus and is contrary to the intent of both of the above MoS sections as well as MOS:JOBTITLES (though it may make better sense for trademarked certifications, e.g. Microsoft Certified Solutions Expert, MCSE). So, I would lean lower-case on this as a general principle, unless "capitalized in a substantial majority of independent reliable sources" is actually provable for particular cases, which would take some work to identify a non-trivial amount of sourcing that has no connection to the bodies involved in the certifications. Maybe start with scholar.google.com and scholar.archive.org? PS: That said, a designator letter like "A" or "O" and an acronym like "GCE" in such things would always be capitalized.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Regions of the Czech Republic

Should the names of regions of the Czech Republic include the word "Region" with a capital letter (e.g., the Central Bohemian Region)? Please see Template:Regions of the Czech Republic or Regions of the Czech Republic#List of regions for a list of them. Google Ngram does not show capitalization dominant – results with more than a single result: Central Bohemian Region, South Bohemian Region, Karlovy Vary Region, Liberec Region, Pardubice Region, South Moravian Region, Olomouc Region, Moravian-Silesian Region. Maybe I should have formatted this as an RM (or should convert it to one). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Capitalising a plural generic term before or after two or more proper names.

In a recent discussion on capitalising forts in battle of Forts Jackson and St. Philip, Deor observed: Most of the (U.S.) style guides I'm familiar with recommend lowercasing a plural generic term when it follows two or more proper names—thus, "the Mississippi and Missouri rivers", even though "river" is capped in "Mississippi River" and "Missouri River"—but capitalizing a generic term when it precedes proper names, as in "Mounts Whitney and Rainier". If this is a consistent norm in English (ie not just the US), is it worth noting this in the MOS? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know the guides, but I see overwhelmingly capped Forts in Forts Jackson and St. Philip, and overwhelmingly capped Presidents in Presidents Bush and Obama, Generals in Generals MacArthur and Eisenhower. Probably that's not enough to generalize from, but it's suggestive. Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Alternatively, just rewrite as “…Fort Jackson and Fort St. Philip… ”. You don’t need the plural form when there are only two or three mentioned. Blueboar (talk) Blueboar (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I would go that way, since "Mounts", etc., leans toward completely contrived in contemporary English, and we can avoid the confusing inconsistency of potentially ariving at a "before" rule that directly conflicts with an "after" one (WP:CREEP, MOS:BLOAT, KISS principle). At the cost of a repeated word (or, often enough, abbreviation), it also provides a great deal more clarity; not all readers are going understand "Forts Jackson and Saint/St. Philip" since the later has its own prefixed word or abbreviation. A weird construction like "attended the Universities of California and New Mexico" is rare because it is potentially confusing, and it isn't really improved by writing "attended the universities of California and New Mexico" since that seems to imply universities in those places (and that they are the only ones in those places) but which are named something else we're not specifying. Let's just not go there. Be specific: "Attented the Univerity of Calforia (1987–92), and the Univeristy of New Mexico (1993–94)"; "moved supplies from Ft. Jackson to Ft. St. Philip over the winter"; "Mt. Whitney (California) and Mt. Ranier (Washington state) are the two most-visited peaks of the US West Coast"; and so on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

"Park Hyatt Hotel" or "Park Hyatt hotel"?

Is "Park Hyatt Hotel" a single name where all words are capitalized, or is "hotel" a mere lower-case modifier in such cases? I would tend to capitalized the generic term, just as in Congo River or Baltic Sea. However, other users seem to disagree and MOS:INSTITUTIONS lacks an example that could clarify this point. Gawaon (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

This Hyatt page discusses their brands, including "Park Hyatt" and mentions "Park Hyatt hotels". Typical hotel names are of the form "Park Hyatt <City>". I don't thing "Park Hyatt Hotel" is the proper name of anything. Where does this come up? Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
It was in the context of Lupin (French TV series). To me it looks strange having a lower-case letter there, but well ... okay. Gawaon (talk) 06:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
It looks like the name of that one is Park Hyatt Paris–Vendôme, genericized to the Park Hyatt hotel in central Paris. Seems right. Dicklyon (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, this is like "the Larsen–Feiten Band", which was the actual name of a band, versus "Coverdale–Page" which was the name of another band; if someone called the latter "the Coverdale–Page band" (which has definitely happened [3]) it would be understood what was meant, but not their actual name, so should not be written with capital-B "Band". Or in other words, the presence of "Hotel" in some hotels' official names doesn't make it part of the name of other hotels that lack the word, even if it's later appended as a descriptor/disambiguator (or out of ignorance/confusion).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Undocumented conversion to uppercase by {{no redirect}} template

This is a bit of a word-of-warning about the {{no redirect}} template, a.k.a. the {{-r}} template, which is apparently used on about 623,000 pages on Wikipedia (about 1% of all pages). Although Wikipedia says it "avoids unnecessary capitalization", this template is causing automatic conversions to uppercase in an undocumented way. If you type "{{no redirect|lowercase}}" and "{{no redirect|heroic}}", you (currently) get what looks like "lowercase" and "Heroic"! If you want "heroic", you need to use "{{no redirect|heroic|heroic}}". This behaviour is undocumented at Template:No redirect, and in my opinion it will introduce errors. It will cause uppercase to appear in the middle of sentences in a rather unpredictable way. Very few people would probably notice or understand when it will convert the link name to uppercase and when it will not. There is a discussion of the issue at Template talk:No redirect, but I wanted to mention it here to let people know to keep an eye out for this when editing and to show how to use the template with the duplicate argument if the template is causing uppercase but you want a lowercase result. The problem was reported on the template talk page six years ago, but there hadn't been any response before I noticed it today. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm proposing a change on the MOS:BIOGRAPHY page that will affect capitalization conventions

Please weigh in there. Primergrey (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters/Archive_41&oldid=1253550449"