Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)/Archive 1

message: Might I suggest that the animal capitalization bits point over to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna), that way it can be hashed out in one place? Stan 06:12 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:As long as there is a link from capitalisation, I have no problems with that. I'd forgotten the fauna bit, and its clear from the current edit wars that most other people start from capitalisation. I don't think there is any contradiction between the two articles, so mine is probably superfluous once a link is added  jimfbleak 06:31 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)
::The Wilson's Storm-petrel example given here before (as Wilson's Storm-Petrel) was in conflict with the specifications on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds page, so I've amended it to match that page - MPF 23:41, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Fauna

message: While my personal preference is to capitalise as done for birds & most other fauna, the overwhelming majority of plants are already not capitalised, so changing them all to capital first letters would be a logistic nightmare. So the handful of cases where they have been capitalised (e.g. the Scots Pine example cited here) I'm converting (as I find them) to only the very first letter capitalised (Scots pine) for the sake of standardisation - MPF 12:30, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Flora

message: I think it important to point to the differences in capitalisation in American English and British English, as Jtdirl has discussed on the mailing list and in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (theorems). -- Jim Regan 02:14 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:I just read the assertion that the UK uses capitals more than the US. I am convinced that it is the other way around, at least for headings. I have discussed this over the years with people. I tell people to compare the article headlines in the US newspaper http://www.nytimes.com/ with the article headlines in the UK newspaper http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
:Note that the US newspaper headlines are not even Word Case. They Use the Rather More Difficult to Specify Title Case, Where Some Words have Capitals and Others Do Not (believe me, I have tried to specify it on behalf of an international client).
:With Word Case, it is not possible to highlight a word for any reason (e.g. proper noun). Without word case, the opportunity to highlight a word remains. In most situations it does not matter, but it can. The following two sentences look quite different:
:Arrival of gardener to support bush
:Arrival of Gardener to support Bush
:but they would be indistinguishable in Word Case:
:There are even some companies that use lower case for the beginning of sentences e.g. http://web.orange.co.uk/
:In summary, I support the use of sentence case. However, I think that the assertion that the UK uses word case more than the US is the opposite of the truth. It should therefore be modified in some way (e.g. made more general).
Bobblewik 23:37, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That struck me funny when I read it too. Mackerm 01:37, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: U.S./UK

message: # So whats the final word on capitalization for articles on laws and theorems ? Upper case or lower case or whatever the respective page's contributor wishes ? I couldn't find a mention of this in the conventions.
# The page says "Most names of doctrines shouldn't be capitalized." Is there no British English vs. American English clash here ? Most of the doctrines I found are capitalized though - Monroe Doctrine, Stimson Doctrine, Truman Doctrine, Eisenhower Doctrine, Brezhnev Doctrine, Carter Doctrine.
Jay 09:12, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Laws, Theorems and doctrines

message: User:Topbanana/Reports/This page contains a link that might be mis-punctuated is a Quality Assurance report listing links which may be miscapitalised. Before we sort that list out, I'd assert that unless I have not looked hard enough, the Naming Convention does not provide good enough advice on the format of the titles of cultural works. Which of these three is correct: 
*Jamie and the Magic Torch? 
*Jamie And The Magic Torch? 
*Jamie and the magic torch? 
and I suspect others might be hard to call (or not - YMMV)
*Bailey Bridge?
*Bailey bridge?
Could I ask for more advice from the community, to cover this issue in Naming Convention, perhaps with some worked examples of the Magic Torch variety. --Tagishsimon
:Capitalization includes the normal rules for titles. So without even looking at your links, Screen Test is probably the title of something, while Screen test is probably a description of an acting audition. Keep in mind, some titles have intentionally strange capitalization. Mackerm 17:44, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, but it doesn't really address the Magic Torch example, and there is a wide spread of normal rules, judging by Topbanana's report. --Tagishsimon
Sorry. Jamie and the Magic Torch and Bailey bridge. Also, I'd change the first word in the bridge article from "the" to "a". Mackerm 21:08, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Titles of cultural works

message: What about these articles: Russian Civil War, Russian Revolution of 1905, Russian Revolution of 1917, Polish-Soviet War. Should that be changed? Der Eberswalder 15:37, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian History 

message: Despite my best efforts, I have been unable to determine how to change an article's title.  I attempted to create Belchertown State School, which is a proper name, but I ended up with Belchertown state school instead.  It seems that instructions for editing titles would be helpful to have included with this article on capitalization conventions. -Etoile 21:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to change an article's title 

message: Should all of the articles about Canadian parliaments be changed from the style "38th Canadian parliament" to "38th Canadian Parliament"? -Arctic.gnome 01:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Governments

message: Pieter Brueghel the Elder and Jan Brueghel the Elder; I've found a couple more where Elder is capitalized. I'm almost sure it's wrong, please confirm and I'll move them. Piet 15:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you search for "the elder" there's an long list of elders, but no consensus. Some use elder, some Elder. Which is right? Elder is not a proper noun, so no capital, so I can start moving pages. OTOH, I won't move Philip the Handsome to Philip the handsome. I need opinions here. Piet 15:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I find this title to be similar to John the Baptist and Alexander the Great.  These are names and titles that become the de facto reference to the characters they refer to.  It would make sense to keep these names consistent by capitalizing all or them or none of them.  I would say that if the character is historically referred to with a name such as "{so and so} the Elder" that such is the correct title to adhere to.  Though "elder" itself is not a proper name, it is the complete title of the character that is being used.  MatthewWilder 20:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jan Brueghel the elder 

message: Because credibility is a primary objective in the creation of any reference work, and because the Wikipedia strives to become a leading (if not the) leading reference work in its genre, formality and an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility.  Therefore, although the Wikipedia search engine does not lend itself to the style of capitalization recommended for use in titles by authoritative manuals of style (e.g., The Chicago Manual of Style, The Guardian Manual of Style, The Little Brown Reader, and The Harbrace College Handbook), I would like to recommend in the editing guidelines and polices that the "work around" described in the last bulleted item in the second paragraph of the "Case sensitivity and searching" section of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) be implemented with the use of "redirects" linking to a page that uses the correct capitalization for all encyclopedia articles.  This entails a little more work, but should be adhered to and I would like to recommend this as a guideline or policy for the future.
Therefore, I propose the following statement to be included after the last bulleted item in the second paragraph of the "Case sensitivity and searching" section of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization): "Because credibility is a primary objective in the creation of any reference work, and because the Wikipedia strives to become a leading (if not the) leading reference work in its genre, formality and an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility.  Therefore, although the Wikipedia search engine does not lend itself to the style of capitalization recommended for use in titles by authoritative manuals of style (e.g., The Chicago Manual of Style, The Guardian Manual of Style, The Little Brown Reader, and The Harbrace College Handbook), the "work around" described in the last bulleted item in the second paragraph of this subsection ("Case sensitivity and searching") should be implemented in order to ensure that article format adhere to industry conventions."
I think that the statement of the reasons for the guideline/policy should be stated so that the reader of the guideline will understand the importance of performing the small amount of extra work to create the redirect page, prior to creating the actual article to which the redirect will be referring.  Lottamiata 20:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for Naming Convention Guideline 

message: * Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Acronyms_and_initialisms:
When showing the source of an acronym or initialism it is not necessary, or desirable to emphasize the letters that make up the acronym:
: Incorrect: FOREX (FOReign EXchange)  or FOREX (foreign exchange) 
: Correct: FOREX (foreign exchange)
: MW: Though it appears clear to me, you seem to be mistaken as to Neal's argument.  The argument is not for acronyms to be capitalized.  In fact, if you read NealMcB's comments, you will see that he offers an example of a term that should remain lower case, though it is often represented as an acronym.  If you want to argue against the automatic capitalization of all things acronymized (ACOATA), then feel free to do so, but understand that it doesn't mean that anything represented by an acronym should not be capitalized in regular usage.  In other words, just because Border Gateway Protocol is a term that has an acronym (BGP) doesn't mean that it should not be capitalized.  The appeal to capitalize BGP is based on the fact that it is a well understood, specific, identifiable thing, in this case a standard.  This fits the very description of a proper noun no matter where you find that definition from.  MatthewWilder 18:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Point 1.  A Cure For Acronymania (ACFA)

message: JA: Definitions from Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary:
* common noun.  a noun that may occur with limiting modifiers (as a or an, some, every, and my) and that designates any one of a class of beings or things.
* proper noun.  a noun that designates a particular being or thing, does not take a limiting modifier, and is usually capitalized in English — called also proper name.
* the.  2 a (1).  used as a function word with a noun modified by an adjective or by an attributive noun to limit the application of the modified noun to that specified by the adjective or by the attributive noun.
JA: For example, the article titled border gateway protocol begins as follows:  "The border gateway protocol …".  The word "the" is a limiting modifier.  In this case, the is used as a function word before a noun (protocol) modified by an adjective or by an attributive noun (border gateway) to limit the application of the modified noun (protocol) to that specified by the adjective or by the attributive noun (border gateway).  In short, border gateway protocol is not a proper noun, as clued by the fact that it takes the limiting modifier the.
JA: Proper nouns denote things that are already as limited as things can be, and so they do not require limiting modifiers to limit their denotation to a particular thing.  Jon Awbrey 01:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Point 2.  Standards And Protocols In General (SAPIGs) are not proper nouns

message: MW: Nor is the Great Depression.  Am I missing something?  MatthewWilder 21:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Point 3.  SAPIGs are not proprietary names

message: MW: Again, the Great Depression isn't either.  What am I missing? MatthewWilder 21:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Point 4.  SAPIGs are not titles of documents

message: JA: The fact that we tolerate a few isolated exceptions for a little while, as in the case of WWW and a few other Widely Worshipped Writs, does not mean that we have to tolerate a whole raft of exceptions forever.  Jon Awbrey 19:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Point 5.  Isolated Transients (ITs)

message: JA: Here is a list of similar articles that I compiled.  Almost all of these phrases were at one time commonly capitalized in standard textbooks and technical literatures and many of them are still capitalized within the specialized linguistic communities where they originated.  By WP MoS does not as a rule recognize this type of parochial usage as overriding general English usage.  Jon Awbrey 02:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Point 6.  Data

message: JA: Let me introduce you to my world.  I suffer from a condition that I'm hoping will oneday make it into DSM-V or maybe DSM-6 — I'm being perhaps a bit too hopeful in assuming that by the time they get to V, the advance of science will have overcome the current cultural lag in mathematics that has them still using Roman numerals.  Anyway, the name of the afflcition is is "Obsessive Logical Order Disorder" (OLOD).  So when I surf past some article and see it full of bad puncs or worse, I just can't help ditching my surfboard to stop and correct the mess.  For example, what would you do, if you were so unlucky as to suffer from OLOD, if you ran across an article like the one on EBNF?  It begins:
The Extended Backus–Naur form (EBNF) is an extension of the basic Backus–Naur form (BNF) metasyntax notation.  Originally developed by Niklaus Wirth, the most commonly used variants of EBNF are currentlty defined by standards, most notably ISO-14977.
If the proper, er, right name of the thing in question is "extended Backus–Naur form", then I may consider that capital "E" to be an oversight of some kind, and correct it accordingly.  Or maybe its proper, and I do mean proper name is really  "Extended Backus–Naur Form", in which case that lower case "f" is the error, and so my duty is to super-size it and also move the article to Extended Backus–Naur Form.  But which?
JA: Here's some additional data from the article:
There is an International standard (ISO 14977) that defines an EBNF. This is now freely available electronically as a zipped pdf file from ISO.
The W3C used a different EBNF to specify the XML syntax.
JA: Does any of that help to decide whether the unpacked term corresponding to EBNF is a common noun or a proper noun?  Exercise For The Intrepid Reader (EFTIR).  Jon Awbrey 05:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NealMcB: That's a good example of a more ambiguous term.  But the issue is straightforward.  The question is whether this particular article is about the general concept of extended BNFs, or whether it is mainly about a particular thing, e.g. a specific standard.  As your excerpts suggest, this one is more an overview of several extended BNFs, so I'd use "extended Backaus-Naur form".  The fact that the history of this term is messy, defined in different ways by different standards, would make it harder to use the capitalized form of the name in most any context.  This is distinguished from ABNF, which is far less ambiguous and referrs to the IETF standard, which was more carefully named, it seems.  Using capitals for ABNF is a service to the reader, signalling this lack of ambiguity.  --NealMcB 15:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: MW: I didn't say that capitalization of guidelines should be context dependant.  I didn't make any judgement on it at all.  I simply said it wasn't part or the discussion (which is around standards and protocols). MatthewWilder 15:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Point 7.  Data analysis

message: JA: Does the vote of 4 people on one article create some kind of border gateway protocol protocol that permits Neal to capitalize internet protocols at will?  I really don't think so.  There is simply no rational justification for saying that Open shortest path first (OSPF) is somehow more a proper noun than First-come, first-served (FCFS), No shirt, no service (NSNS), and a host of similar "protocols", much less why it should be an exception to the "protocols" that the lion's share of the above listed articles follow.  Jon Awbrey 02:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Requested move discussion identified an existing precedent, which exists within Wikipedia, among the commentators, and in the world at large.  The debate was framed that way even before the formal discussion started, with reference to the sorts of standardized protocols of which BGP was an exemplar.  Your new analogies fail to apply because people don't generally understand FCFS or NSNS as things that are defined in specific documents.  A "protocol" whose definition is inherent in the term itself indeed is not a name, but a common noun phrase.  So I have reverted the moves you've made recently, which were clearly controvertial, and which you should have brought up on Wikipedia:Requested_moves before making them in the first place.  I'd say the same thing about your efforts to put en-dashes in the default names of certain articles (User_talk:Jon_Awbrey#En-Dash_Protocol_Reigning_Over_Polynominal_Titles_.28EDPROPT.29, which shows a tension between a Wikipedia policy and the results of the brief discussion you cited.  There is far more precedent in Wikipedia for capatilizing Interneet  protocols than for marking people's names with en-dashes.  --NealMcB 20:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: MW: Universal Serial Bus is not a serial bus.  It is a serial bus standard.  There is no such thing as "a" "universal serial bus".  As for EBNF, I never said whether I think EBNF should be capitalized or not.  MatthewWilder 20:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Point 8.  Precedent?

message: JA: There is apparently some uncertainty that is caused by the presence of limiting modifiers, especially the definite article "the", occurring within phrases that are interpreted as proper nouns denoting particular things.  In some cases, for example, The Sun Also Rises, the presence of the word "the" as a part of the proper noun is easy to see, since common conventions and our local style sheet dictate including the "the" right up front in the name of the article.
JA: In other cases, like The Eiffel Tower, The Kyoto Protocol, The Taj Mahal, or The White House, it is not so clear, since our local style sheet dictates deleting the "the" that is necessary to make the designation grammatically particular instead of leaving it grammatically generic.  But the fact that the artificially de-prefixed phrase never denotes a particular thing except when the "the" is re-prefixed to it is an indication that the "the" is really a necessary syntactic component of the proper name qua proper.  As illustrative evidence of this fact, please look carefully at the titular head of this page — no, the other titular head:
* The White House.
JA: And please pay attention to the seal — no, the one without the fish in his mouth — behind the man in front of the screen:
* The White House Logo.
JA: Like I said before, QED.  Jon Awbrey 21:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please forgive my being so slow-witted, but what have you just proven for us, Jon Awbrey? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Who are you talking to?  I still have no idea what your point is.  I like semantics as much as the next guy, but you said "QED" above.  What was proved - can you answer simply? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: So, are you saying the "f" "p" and "t" should be capitalized in "Lefschetz fixed-point theorem", or not? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: How about USB? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It would be a disservice to our readership to change the capitalization of hundreds of articles, which the world agrees refer to specific standardized names for protocols, just so nonspecialist copyeditors can get away with following a simpleminded rule.  What on earth is wrong with following the ubiquitous practice which helps the reader know that in fact when people use the term Universal Serial Bus, they are signalling that there is in fact a well defined thing which that refers to?  This sort of distinction is indeed helpful to readers, and may well be a reason behind the capitalization of names in the first place.  You might as well argue that we should drop the use of capitals in people's names also.  And I guess you have essentially argued that already, as part of your "Natural Evolution Of The English Language" comment in the original discussion.  --NealMcB 04:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In the past you've said you wouldn't change the capitalization of TCP, USB, etc.   Assuming you remain consistent on that, there will be enough exceptions that you're going to have a hard time finding a simpleminded rule for copyeditors here.  I think it is much easier and better to just stick to the summary statement of the official naming policy: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.  --NealMcB 05:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You're defining your preferred "rules of English grammar" in a way that doesn't describe what the vast majority of English speakers do, in this case and many others.  Using such rules to make Wikipedia diverge from the rest of the world is not going to get very far.  The two dictionaries I use make no mention of a rule about "the": the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993): Proper...of a name or noun: applicable to a particular individual person, animal, place, country, title etc. (and usu. spelt with a capital letter), and American Heritage, Third Edition, (1993) says proper noun: a noun belonging to the class of words used as names for unique individuals, events or places and usually having few possibilities for modification.  Your definition also notes the use of capitals.  No one disputes that most people use capitals with these terms.  So the capitalization itself helps establish these as proper names.  The titles of these articles are simply not common noun phrases.  They are standardized names for particular interoperable protocols.  And that is why they are interesting to most readers.  --NealMcB 16:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I can answer this one: if you're a copy-editor wondering whether it's "Universal Series Bus" "universal series bus", you'll check around and see how it's usually formatted.  If official documents about USB tend to use caps, that's what I'd use; if not, then not.  Industry standards trump more general rules. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm on the edge of my seat.  What's with the weird conversation formatting around here, anyway?  The way the rest of the Wiki does it isn't good enough for ya? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm also on the edge of my seat.  Did they change the definition of proper noun in a way that helps your cause, or are you just going to mention something useless?  I am in total suspense.  MatthewWilder 15:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How Do I Love "The"?

message: To quote JA:
*"Let me refer to what I said above about what I think should come out of this RFC, namely, a simple set of rules that a non-specialist copy-editor can apply to an article. We have that with mathematical theorems."
Unfortunately, English is not rule driven - it is like the universe - it just is, and theories of the universe are attempts to describe the universe in increasing detail.  For a long time Newton's laws were regarded as adequate descriptions, but this turned out not to be the case, and now we recognise that we still have no adequate theory of everything (TOE).  In the case of English, the 'rules' of grammar and spelling have been deduced by observation, and there is no rhyme or reason as to why certain things occur: to take a trivial example, examine the rule "i before e, except after c", which is weird, and unscientific - and demonstrates that rules are apparently made to be broken.  In the case of capitalisation, I don't think English is susceptible to being broken down into a simple set of rules - there will always be corner cases and exceptions.  Most people speak a certain form of English because it feels right, not because they have formualated a rules based grammar.
However, I will posit one possible helpful rule-of-thumb: in technical writing, when referring to a particular instance or instantiation of a generic thing, the particular instance is usually capitalised.  So we talk of network protocols, but of Transmission Control Protocol; of serial buses, but of Universal Serial Buses.  So, where an article talks about a generic class of things, capitalisation is unnecessary, but when talking about a particular instantiation of that class, capitalisation be used - thus we get 'database normalisation', but 'Third Normal Form'.  There are many white houses, but only one White House (in the USA at least). WLD 20:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impossible task/Hiding to nothing

message: MW: It appears that absolutely everybody accept for JA is in agreement that formalized standards and protocols qualify as proper names, and are deserving of capitalization.  It also seems that JA is unable to make a convincing argument for his own case.  It is unsatisfactory (to me) that we should bend the definition of proper names so that a copy editor with no experience in technical fields can go about decapping anything they don't recognize as a proper noun.  Perhaps the most ironic thing is that JA thinks we want to bend English to fit our own "habbits".  This isn't a poll, but if someone actually wants to start one soon, that may be useful, as the arguments above are complete (IMO).  MatthewWilder 16:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Concensus Minus JA

message: JA: So help me out here:  How should I, the unaided copy-editor, decide what to do about the unpacked version of the acronym USB?  Is the phrase "universal serial bus" (1) a proper name? (2) a proprietary name? (3) the title of a document?  Of course, that phrase may indeed be used as the title of a document somewhere, but the question is whether it is being used that way in the article in question.
: I can answer this one: if you're a copy-editor wondering whether it's "Universal Series Bus" "universal series bus", you'll check around and see how it's usually formatted.  If official documents about USB tend to use caps, that's what I'd use; if not, then not.  Industry standards trump more general rules. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 1.  Check Around

message: MW: Plain and simple.  Is it a proper noun?
 
MW: As much as you (JA) argue that a specific protocol or standard is not particular, you do so unsuccessfully.  Standards and protocols that are documented are far more particular than the Great Depression.  There is a difference between random access memory and Universal Serial Bus, though your determination does not allow you to recognise this.  RAM is merely a manipulation of physical materials to accomplish a task, much like a bucket in nature, and linguistically like a paper clip.  Universal Serial Bus on the other hand is a particular standard that is well-defined and referenceable.  It is far more particular than the Great Depression.  And the Great Depression also slips through the camel sized gaps in your fine-tooth comb of a definition for a proper noun:
 
*"Is the phrase "universal serial bus" (1) a proper name? (2) a proprietary name? (3) the title of a document?"
 
MW: Not a single definition of a proper noun requires that a proper name be that of a proprietary name or a document.  Those are the misconceptions of an riglidly narrow-minded copy editor unwilling to and incapable of hearing and understanding sound arguments.  MatthewWilder 19:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MW: Shortly after writing this, I realized my confusion.  Thanks for confirming.  MatthewWilder 15:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: MW: I just showed below that the Great Depression does not contain "the" in the title.  Look carefully at the title of the page, and also do a case sensitive search for "the Great Depression".  On my behalf, please don't cry when you see it appear 22 times, including every single time "the Great Depression" appears in the title of books cited as references.  Now what was it you were saying about being "mentally prepared to get what we mean it to mean"?  I am not the one who is misinterpretting the use of "the".  MatthewWilder 15:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 2.  Is It A Proper Noun?

message: JA: Those of you who want to update their copy-editing skills — and who wouldn't? — might want to peruse the dataset that I've been amassing above, and see if you can guess, before chasing the links, what you'll see at the other end, hyper-thetically speaking.  Many of the newly added items are culled from dab pages — many of these got their last update at vastly different times from the last update of the articles linked, and so there are numerous discrepancies in the corresponding capitalizations.  I know, believe me I know, this can be pretty dull business, so invite a few friends over, supply yourselves with mass quantities of pizza and beer, and place earnest bets on your competing bids as to what the next turn'o'th'card will turn up.  Jon Awbrey 17:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chasing CARS.  The Interactive Fantasy Computer Game

message: Ye knowe eek, that in forme of speche is chaunge
	With-inne a thousand yeer, and wordes tho
	That hadden prys, now wonder nyce and straunge
	Us thinketh hem;  and yet they spake hem so,
	And spedde as wel in love as men now do;
	Eek for to winne love in sondry ages,
	In sondry londes, sondry been usages.
	Geoffrey Chaucer, Troilus and Criseyde (1385)
JA: Well, it's been fun folks, but far less funsome duty calls, so it's back to the grinstone for me, fora while.  Jon Awbrey 17:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya know, there is like 100k of argument here, and it's tl;dr.  Here are two cents anyways: USB is a proper noun as Universal Serial Bus, it is the name of a thing, not a thing.  So are most techy specs.  So keep them capitalized.  SchmuckyTheCat 17:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Envoi.  New Fanger Writes And Having Writ ...

message: Not to poke a tiger with a stick, but why does it say that article titles don't follow  standard English protocols on capitalization? The English-language articles in Wikipedia are supposed to follow standard English. English is not bound to follow Wikipedia's rules, it's the other way around. It's as if every reputable publication capitalizes but not us. I must echo statements made previously here. If we are trying to make this Wikipedia into a reputable resource of equal standing to print resources we must follow proper English. If we do not, professional chemists will be leery of our chemistry entries, philosophers will derisively chuckle about the entries on philosophy, and so on. The current policy is in opposition to every style manual I know of, what rationale informs this idea? MerricMaker 14:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Matters of Capitalization (Revisited)

message: Are there any guidelines related to the capitalization of dance names, like foxtrot, waltz, tango, salsa, ballet, swing, etc.? There's been a dispute about that on the Dance WikiProject for quite some time. Other encyclopedias and dictionaries don't seem to have a standard. We've agreed that dances derived from proper nouns should be capitalized (such as Balboa and Argentine tango) and that the names of performances and choreography should be capitalized (such as Swan Lake and Shim Sham), but what about more common dance names (like waltz and tango)? Also, what about specific dance moves (like swingout and box step)? --Cswrye 17:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of dances 

message: There seems to be some (now stale, year-old) debate at prime minister and heir apparent about how these articles should be capitalised. (The debate hinging on the fact that in some contexts, these honorifics appear capitalised, such as in Prime Minister John Doe.) If I understand the guidelines correctly, then the proper titles of those articles should not be capitalised, but some editors on the talk pages have disagreed strongly. I suspect there are some similar articles about such titles. Arbor 08:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prime minister, heir apparent 

message: I don't want to aggravate exhausted monitors of this article unduly after the extended debate about technical terms, but there is an ambiguity in the current policy that has an impact on a great many articles and should be addressed, if possible: where does Wikipedia wish to stand on the confusing matter of capitalizing "minor" words in the titles of creative works? This question has been brought up a few times above, but not really addressed.
Three weeks ago, Patrick added the following text to this guideline's introduction:
: Titles of books, titles of films, and titles of other works are also capitalized, except for minor words, e.g. A New Kind of Science, Ghost in the Shell
I have just changed it to the following:
: In general, titles of books, films, and other works are also capitalized, except for articles (a, and, the) and prepositions and conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., to, from, and). Examples: A New Kind of Science, Ghost in the Shell, To Be or Not to Be.
This parallels the specific (and more detailed) statement in Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Album titles and band names. (Its sections on Film titles and Books - literary works say nothing about capitalization, and the related genre articles Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pieces of music), are also silent on this matter.) This restatement also seems to me to be more in keeping with (A) IMDb's conventions for films, and (B) actual general practice for our articles on works of art. I (poorly) define the latter as my observation and editing of over a thousand book, film, TV, album, and song articles that may start out with alternative capitalization, but tend to move in the direction of the version I cite.
It would be better to have specific professional style guidelines to cite, but in the absence of such, I'm hoping that this attempt to synchronize WP:NC and this guideline article, and regularize the practice across most if not all similar works of art, in keeping with current, actual title conventions, is satisfactory to most. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Minor" words in titles of creative works 

message: This came up on Talk:Biblical literalism. I thought that the word scripture did not need to be capitalized. The other editor cited a dictionary that said it is often capitalized, especially in the phrase "Holy Scripture". A) I think the phrase Holy Scripture is POV and not a proper name for the Bible B) this situation is comparable to the pronouns used with deities. While some outside sources may capitalize them, we don't do that here on wikipedia. Similarly, the Bible should be capitalized, but not scripture. Anyway, I was just wondering what others thought on this issue. Should scripture be capitalized?--Andrew c 21:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When "Holy Scripture" is being used as a synonymous name for the Bible, I suppose it should be capitalized in the same fashion as the Bible. However, I think references to "the scriptures" should always be lower-case. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy Scripture 

message: So then the first letter of every word in a section title should be capitalized.???100110100
:Articles and section headings are consistent; capitalize the first word and then only proper nouns.  See Wikipedia:Manual of Style for the guideline on section headings.  I'm not exactly sure where this guideline originated, but since links are case sensitive this guideline makes it possible to include a link to an article in a sentence without creating a redirect with alternate case.  -- Rick Block (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Arn't The First Letter Of Every Word In A Title Capitalized? 

message: The page is a little unclear as to how to capitalize titles in foreign languages.  In Spanish, usually only the first word and proper nouns are capitalized.  Should titles in Spanish use this guideline, or the English one?  For example, should it be Pies Descalzos or Pies descalzos?  —ShadowHalo 21:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused; it seems that the result is the same (P... d...) regardless of which convention you use. -- Visviva 05:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Titles in English are capitalized except for articles and prepositions (e.g. Laundry Service).  ShadowHalo 03:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's preferable to keep the native capitalization:  it's hard enough to decide what's a preposition and what's a conjunction in English, let alone other languages that our editors are less familiar with.  See 12e Régiment blindé du Canada for an existing article that uses French capitalization rules. Indefatigable 13:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles in foreign languages 

message: I got two definitive responses when I asked the question, the affirmative in the above section and a negative on my talk page.  So obviously this guideline needs to be changed since it addresses the issue very poorly, if at all.  Essentially, I propose that we use the same rules for foreign language titles as we do for English language titles, for example Día de Enero rather than Día de enero.  There are many articles formatted with both versions, so either way, there'll end up being pages moved to conform with the decision.  My reasoning, though, is that having a different convention is visually confusing when going from page to page, especially when dealing with bilingual topics.  For example, it'd look sloppy to have alternating uppercase and lowercase titles at Shakira#Discography.  ShadowHalo 21:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Indefatigable above; it's too much to ask for contributors to be able to tell articles and prepositions in every conceivable foreign language. However, it's also too much to expect contributors to be familiar with Spanish or Flemish or Russian capitalization conventions. Instead, we should just recommend that the capitalization used in the sources be followed. If I'm writing an article on the Jaunde-Texte von Karl Atangana und Paul Messi, I shouldn't be trying to figure out what to capitalize and to leave lowercase on my own; I should be deferring to my authority on the subject, namely, Frederick Quinn, the source of the information. — Brian (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well. It's difficult for an editor to learn them, even by Googling, since even the native capitalization norms are as inconsistently followed as they are in English. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Using the capitalization from the source itself often doesn't work because of the fact that sources (in any language) will often use weird capitalization for the sake of design.  How about using the capitalization commonly found in English sources?  ShadowHalo 00:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's in essence what I meant. It sounds reasonable to me. — Brian (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, with the exception that articles, prepositions etc. remained uncapitalised as usual. Extraordinary Machine 21:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But then we're back to trying to guess what is and isn't a preposition in the target language, though. I mean, if I were to write an article on a book of Swahili poetry, I wouldn't have a clue what word meant what. — Brian (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I only meant if we knew what words in the language are prepositions or whatever. Extraordinary Machine 21:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While the source itself may feature modified case for the sake of graphics, often looking to how it is referred to by other sources can clarify the norm. In printed matter such as books, you can also check the copyright page to see how it is given there. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for foreign language titles 

message: What's the guideline on job titles?  Are they considered titles, like the titles of books or films, or are they merely noun phrases?  I recently moved Assistant Stage Manager to assistant stage manager, because it's used as a descriptor (see, for example, the use in Peter Davison, which says " His first job was as an actor and assistant stage manager at the Nottingham Playhouse.")  A user at Talk:Assistant stage manager disagreed with the move.  What do people here think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should probably be Assistant stage manager.  The first letter should be capitalized unless it's written lowercase at the beginning of a sentence (e.g. iPod, eBay).  However, the rest generally should be lowercase since the article should be about assistant stage managers, not about the word's uses as a title.  ShadowHalo 00:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since assistant stage manager and Assistant stage manager are always the same page in MediaWiki, I tend to use the two interchangeably.  Anyway, thanks for reinforcing my feeling that Assistant Stage Manager was wrong. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Job titles 

message: I've raised this question at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Capitalisation.  The "four letters or fewer" condition was inserted without consensus (or even much discussion) a few months ago, and I've aked for consensus before it's reinserted.  It could be discussed here as well, I suppose, but I thought it better to cut down the threads (there's also a needlessly acrimonious debate at WP:AN/I). --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 11:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four letters or fewer 

message: Priestfield Stadium, home of Gillingham F.C., is to be known from 1 June 2007 as the krbs Priestfield Stadium.  Why the sponsoring building society wish to reduce their initials to lower case is unclear, but that is what has been announced.  Will Wikipedia software and indexing allow for a page to be called krbs Priestfield Stadium?  Trying that redlink leads to a potential new page "Krbs Priestfield Stadium", and having one initial capitalised and the rest not strikes me as even uglier than the sponsor's preference for all lower case.  Kevin McE 23:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you move it to Krbs Priestfield Stadium, you can add  to the very beginning of the article.  See Wikipedia:Technical limitations#Lower case first letter for more information.  ShadowHalo 03:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lower case sponsorship of stadium 

message: Question for anyone watching here: How does the capitalization naming convention apply to titles of things that are in all caps, such as JIM IN BOLD (it's still titled at Jim in Bold since I didn't want to move it without policy to back my decision). JIM IN BOLD is the official title of the film. I suppose we want it to be at the official title with redirects. Thoughts? --Rkitko (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All caps official title for film, ideas?