Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters

message: In a recent discussion on capitalising forts in battle of Forts Jackson and St. Philip,  observed:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 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)
thread_title:  Capitalising a plural generic term before or after two or more proper names. 

message: In pursuit of a compromise, can we perhaps say that the full term  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  or the similar , and especially in the singular . 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  as an exemption. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Founding Fathers: compromise?  

message: * Agree with  and , 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Simply looking at numbers and ngrams does not tell us everything. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, far from it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Agree with . — We can't ignore the most reliable sources, scholars, and as said, the article in question employs such sources throughout. Re this statement:  .  "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Examples of capitalization for '' 'US' '' Founding Fathers  occurs in nearly all reliable and scholarly sources

message: 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: , , , , , , , , , , , and  — Allreet (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This notice really belongs on Allreet's Talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Shall do. Brain f*rt. Th*nks. Allreet (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange comment. No it doesn't... InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring more to  comment but saw a benefit to '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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think I’m coming to see why so much ink was spilled above… — HTGS (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

text: * 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)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Time to move on

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Not worth mentioning. Government sources are known to overcap. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Official" names in lead differing only in capitalization 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Does anyone else object to adding these ten words for reasons that are not needlessly bureaucratic? InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Clarifying sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Capping the levels 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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:  [...] but  not ". 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
thread_title:  Online username: CAP1TAL or Cap1tal? 

message: I have been having a debate with  on whether List of tornado outbreaks by Outbreak Intensity Score should be "List of tornado outbreaks by Outbreak Intensity Score" or "List of tornado outbreaks by outbreak intensity score". The question comes down bluntly to whether MOS (which is Tony1's argument) says proper names in the title cannot be capitalized, or if RS, which capitalized things, is more important for the capitalization in a title. Tony1 has also switched "Super Outbreaks" to "Super outbreaks" in the article subheadings, despite academically published papers capitalizing "Super Outbreak". So, which is more important for article titles/article subheadings? MOS or RS? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Noting this discussion was opened after Tony1 accused me of "vandalism" for reverting on grounds that RS capitalize things. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I'm always a bit confused by the "proper names" argument: there are plenty of proper names in English that are rendered in lowercase, unless the only qualification for a name being proper is that it's capitalized, which is adorably circular. Remsense诉 00:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well honestly it needs to be sorted out for scales like this. Several science-scales in the weather-world are currently capitalized: International Fujita scale, Enhanced Fujita scale, Saffir–Simpson scale, Miller Classification, Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale, Sperry–Piltz Ice Accumulation Index. The main argument presented by Tony1, in short, states that all of these need to be decapitalized. My argument was due to RS capitalization. So even though it seems like a hot-headed style discussion opening, it honestly does need to be solved. RS or MOS/grammar for capitalization of scientific things. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The capitalization of Fujita, Saffir–Simpson, Miller, and Sperry–Piltz are on account of those being names of people.  I'd question that "Ice Accumulation Index", but it does seem to be always capped in sources, even though it's a descriptive term, so I won't mess with it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Just want to know that Thomas P. Grazulis the creator of OIS actually capitalized all three words. "Score" is part of the name, similar to how "Index" is part of the Sperry–Piltz Ice Accumulation Index. "scale" in Enhanced Fujita scale is lowercase in all usages of it. But in this circumstance, "Score" is part of the term. Basically, "Outbreak Intensity" is a different term (actually created by the Storm Prediction Center) while "Outbreak Intensity Score" was created by Thomas P. Grazulis last year. Hopefully that helps explain it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: WeatherWriter, the MOS says how to decide, but doesn't decide itself.  In fact, it refers to reliable sources.  If you read the lead of MOS:CAPS, you'll see the general principle, "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia."  Looking at the article, I see that the term was made up in late 2023, so there are not many independent sources yet.  We don't generally pay much attention to the capitalization of a writer who makes up a descriptive term and presents it with capital letters – what matters is whether independent sources cap it.  I did find this Tornado Project Online page that uses lowercase except where defining the acronym.  The term is clearly descriptive, sort of like volcanic explosivity index and lots of other such things.  I'll look into the others; e.g. Miller classification sure seems like it's over-capitalized.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I see that site I linked with lowercase is also not independent, as it seems to be run by the creator/author of the OIS.  So he doesn't even cap it consistently himself.  I guess the question is then whether this new scale is even notable yet. Dicklyon (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I fixed Northeast snowfall impact scale and Miller classification, as independent sources don't mostly cap those.  If anyone objects, we can have an RM discussion.  WeatherWriter, if you still object to the fix tony1 did, we can do an RM on that, too.  If you don't object, go ahead and fix it again, please. Dicklyon (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does RS or MOSCAPS decides proper names? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Regions of the Czech Republic 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 ) 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)
thread_title:  "Park Hyatt Hotel" or "Park Hyatt hotel"? 

message: This is a bit of a word-of-warning about the  template, a.k.a. the  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  and , you (currently) get what looks like "lowercase" and "Heroic"! If you want "heroic", you need to use . 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)
thread_title:  Undocumented conversion to uppercase by {{tl|no redirect}} template