Talk:Payload specialist

message: Should this article be at Payload specialist to comply with naming conventions?--Peta 02:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's a formal title, along with Commander, Pilot, and Mission Specialist (and ISS Commander and ISS Flight Engineer). Payload Specialist Astronauts --Dhartung | Talk 05:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: So why don't NASA plan on using any more payload specialists for the rest of the shuttle program's life? Have they given a reason? Stevage 17:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I added these links to pilot, flight engineer and mission commander (took them from Payload Specialist), but I think the links are currently not really helpful (there should be more information about the other functions). It would be nice if someone with better knowledge could fix this, either by adding the space flight related information to those pages or by creating new articles. 84.144.37.193 16:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More info on other functions?

message: The title "payload specialist" should not be capitalized, just as "lieutenant colonel" should not be, per MOS:MILTERMS and MOS:JOBTITLES. Eleven years ago there may have been different views, as evidenced in the section above (Name). Saying it's a "formal title" nowadays doesn't trump the MoS. Discussion or agreement? Chris the speller yack 15:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The MoS is a guideline which is "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." JOBTITLES specifically says they "are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically." As used as specific job titles by NASA, they should be capitalized. They should only be lowercase in those rare instances when the term is being used generically (for example, by a journalist in a story about a non-NASA crew member), if and when it comes into common parlance. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Also notice the lead sentences of Payload Specialist and Mission Specialist specifically talk about the NASA job titles. If and when the terms truly become generic (can you prove that has happened yet?) the articles will have to be rewritten. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: By that reasoning, "pope" and "cardinal" are used as specific job titles by the Vatican, so they should be capitalized, but Wikipedia has decided not to. The MoS is clear that the title is not capitalized except "when they can be considered to have become part of the name", like "Payload Specialist Smith", or "used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name". Such cases do not appear in these articles. Nearly every week some editor picks up "used generically" and tries to run with it, but that play has been whistled dead. Chris the speller yack 06:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Any reason this is not an RM? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Having seen discussion from years ago, I thought it might be a good idea to grease the skids first, and this seemed like a good public place for any possible discussion. I brought this up on this talk page and the talk page for "Mission Specialist" and on the talk page for "WikiProject Spaceflight" so all people who might be concerned with it would get a chance for comment; I don't want to sneak this past anyone. If there had been no objections I would have made it an RM. If anyone thinks this is not a good place for discussion, I will close this and do the RM now. Chris the speller yack 16:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see how this page could be considered a public place; the only things less public are user talk pages and email. lol.There was recently a title conflict between a few people interested in trains and a few interested in MoS (should "narrow gauge" be hyphenated in titles?), and I feel it was important to include both perspectives equally, even though it would have been less contentious with only one. I saw that you posted a notice at MoS, but it's more about potential change to MoS than about this proposed title change. If I'm not mistaken, RMs are listed in a some central location which is more likely to be seen by the generalists (but that might be a wishful-thinking fantasy). Anyway as you say it will ultimately be an RM anyway, so I'm missing the point of spending time greasing skids beforehand. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted the kind of editors who preferred capitalization ten years ago to have an opportunity to have their say, since it had been discussed here before. I didn't expect to get beat up for being considerate of people who might view the issue differently than I do. I don't see how you or any other editor is harmed by bringing it up here again. I'm missing the point of spending time objecting to  mentioning the possible change here. Chris the speller yack 04:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize. I thought I was engaged in a good-faith and mutually respectful discussion about process. I certainly didn't mean to beat you up, but it sounds like a good time to withdraw. Best of luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Chris the speller is correct. This is an ordinary, generic usage. Just because an organization uses non-standard capitalization (e.g., my workplace often capitalizes job titles in all usages, such as "Technical Writer–Editor," which is incorrect per almost any style manual, including Wikipedia's), that non-standard usage does not trump consistent typography that we strive for. This type of hyper-capitalization can be found in almost any bureaucratic organization in the English-speaking world. Military (or government in general) and business organizations are notorious, both of which I am involved with. Holy (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization