Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) page.

Some archive talk of interest is at [1].


Contents

[edit] Time periods

Such as the Jurassic have capitals. How about the middle ages or Middle Ages? Cold War. Post War? Inter-War years? Victorian era or Victorian Era? Rich Farmbrough 23:01 12 April 2006 (UTC).

How about Hurricane Emily or hurricane Ivan, were they Category 2 or category 2? Rich Farmbrough 12:46 11 May 2006 (UTC).
I'd definitely say "category 2"; for your other questions see "historical periods" below. --Espoo 09:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protocols & Standards

JA: There has been considerable discussion on Talk:Border gateway protocol as to whether the names of things like internet protocols and hardware standards should be capitalized. This has, of course, wide-ranging implications that go far beyond this particular article. We have had some difficulty finding anything in the MoS that is specific and unambiguous enough to resolve the issue. Jon Awbrey 03:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


JA: The Capitalist Conflagration has burst the surly bonds of the border gateway protocol and is now being bandied about at points south of this heading. Jon Awbrey 05:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

See this link for an earlier discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style archive (capitalization)#Capitalization of computer terms --Blainster 07:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nations, nationalities, and ethnicities

Should we add the topic of nations, nationalities, and ethnicities isn't to the project page? Fg2 00:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Titles

Can someone please quote here section 7.16 of the 14th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style? I only have the 15th edition, and neither it nor the Guardian Manual of Style seem to support the capitalization advice given in Wikipedia's style manual. In the 15th edition, chapter 8 is the relevant chapter, particularly sections 8.21, 8.23, 8.25, 8.26, and 8.29. They all call for a "down" style, which I think it more in line with the rest of Wikipedia. --Rob Kennedy 23:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Rob, what is a "down" style? Rich Farmbrough 09:25 6 August 2006 (GMT).
It’s a style that eschews excessive capitalization. It wouldn’t capitalize president unless used as a title in front of the person’s name, as in “Today President Bush signed a bill.” But it would not be capitalized in “Today the president signed a bill” or even “Today the president of the United States signed a bill.” Here are sections 8.21 and 8.22 of the 15th edition:
8.21
Capitalization: the general rule. Civil, military, religious, and professional titles are capitalized when they immediately precede a personal name and are thus used as part of the name (usually replacing the title holder’s first name). Titles are normally lowercased when following a name or used in place of a name (but see 8.22). See 8.25–29 for many examples. For abbreviated forms, see 15.11–18.
President Lincoln; the president Dean Mueller; the dean
General Bradley; the general Governors Edgar and Ryan; the governors
Cardinal Newman; the cardinal
Although both first and second names may be used after a title (e.g., Vice President Dick Cheney), such usage is generally avoided in formal prose. Note also that once a title has been given, it need not be repeated each time a person’s name is mentioned.
Dick Durbin, senator from Illinois; Senator Durbin; Durbin
8.22
Exceptions to the general rule. In formal contexts as opposed to running text, such as a displayed list of donors in the front matter of a book or list of corporate officers in an annual report, titles are usually capitalized even when following a personal name. Exceptions may also be called for in promotional or other contexts for reasons of courtesy or politics.
Maria Martinez, Director of International Sales
A title used alone, in place of a personal name, is capitalized only in such contexts as a toast or a formal introduction, or when used in direct address.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Prime Minister.
I would have done it, Captain, but the ship was sinking.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Wikipedia isn’t in the business of courtesy or politics, so I don’t see much call for exceptions to the general rule. --Rob Kennedy 19:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I should add a quote from section 8.2:
The “down” style. Chicago generally prefers a “down” style—the parsimonious use of capitals. Although proper names are capitalized, many words derived from or associated with proper names (brussels sprouts, board of trustees), as well as the names of significant offices (presidency, papacy), may be lowercased with no loss of clarity or respect.
--Rob Kennedy 19:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm definitely down with that. Rich Farmbrough 14:43 23 August 2006 (GMT).

[edit] Institutions RE: Churches

Regarding institutions such as universities and hospitals the Chicago Manual of Style is clear on the use of capital letters. However, should we extend this to churches, such that we would refer to the Catholic Church, the church, and not the Church? That would seem to be my interpretation, but I do not have the CMS in front of me, so help would be appreciated. -- Bantab 18:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sections 8.105–106 of the 15th edition appear to call for lowercase church unless it’s part of the “formal name of a denomination … or congregation ….” The Guardian Manual of Style asks for pretty much the same. However, I don’t think we would generally refer to “the Catholic Church” since the sheer length of the Catholic article suggests the term is ambiguous. Capitalization in that article definitely needs some cleanup. --Rob Kennedy 20:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Academic degrees

I think it would be good for Wikipedia to have a stated standard (or a stated lack of standard) on the capitalization of academic degrees. For example, should it be "John Doe earned a bachelor of science degree from Mars University" or "John Doe earned a Bachelor of Science degree from Mars University"?

Looking at the FAQs from the Chicago Manual of Style website, I find the following:

Q. Should one capitalize academic degrees? I am reading a quasi-academic journal and am wondering about the capitalization of three words in the following sentence: “He was hoping to use his Associate of Applied Science degree.”
A. Chicago style is to lowercase the degree (including the field) in running text and whenever it’s used generically. Generic uses (like the one in your sentence) often are introduced by “a” or “the” or “his.” Capitalize the name of a degree when it is displayed on a resume, business card, diploma, alumni directory, or anywhere it looks like a title rather than a description. You can’t go too far wrong with this if you’re consistent within a given document.

Perhaps we should emphasize the final point about consistency. –RHolton≡– 03:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The"

I notice there is no guideline here for the capitalization of the word "The" before a proper noun. In comics-related articles, editors frequently capitalize "The" when referring to characters with the word "the" in their names, such as the Joker, the Riddler, the Hulk, etc. Any suggestion on how to explain this to editors who do this? --Chris Griswold 08:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the only justification for uppercase "The" would be if it is part of a title. So The Joker might be the title of an issue or episode, but "the" is not part of the character's proper name, so should not be capitalized in ordinary use. --Blainster 07:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Chicago says that the "The" can be subsumed onto the text, depending on context and appearance. So for example to avoid "the The Incredible Hulk's shirt was ripped" even to the extent of 'the "Incredible Hulk"'s shirt was ripped' - i.e. moving "the" outside the quotes. Also I would accept lowering the case of "the" when it is inside quotes, with the possible exception of the band "The The".
Rich Farmbrough 14:54 23 August 2006 (GMT).
At the Slot, Bill Walsh addresses the issue of when the is part of a proper noun and when it’s simply a definite article in the surrounding text.[2] Even if the full correct name is The Incredible Hulk, not every instance of that three-word sequence will use a capital T. On the other hand, Chicago (15th ed., §8.180) says the gets lowercased for all periodical titles, so even if you see the titles The New York Times or The Economist at your news stand, Chicago advises that you write the New York Times and the Economist (except at the beginning of a sentence, of course). This advice has the practical advantage that editors no longer need to check whether a publication happens to include the in its name. I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to extend this policy to other names that start with the. --Rob Kennedy 16:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization in Bullets

Sue Anne stated that when doing bullets, it should be utilized like "Rules and regulations" instead of "Rules and Regulations". I wholeheartedly disagree with this, as whenever you bullet things, and bold it, it should be like "Rules and Regulations" instead of "Rules and regulations". This is so because it then makes the bullet and/or topic more attention-grabbing. From my standpoint, capitalization rules needs to be changed so that anything that's bulleted and bolded to describe a sentence/paragraph before it should be capitalized like "Rules and Regulations", and that headers should read like "Rules and Regulations" instead. I really hate to debate on this, but this rule needs to be changed. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 02:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The bullet, indentation, and bold typeface draw enough attention as it is. We needn't bash the reader in the face; this is not a Las Vegas casino. —ptk✰fgs 21:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vesther still disagrees

To me, the reason why I rely on caps is because if there was a section that describes something, then it would not look good to me (i.e. This Paragraph vs. This paragraph). "This header" doesn't look too good when it comes to describing a header, but "This Header" looks a lot better. I really stand for the fact that there will be times when I have to use caps.

About bullets, this is kind of subjective and arbitrary, but I still have a beef with capitalization usage. Same thing applies as with section naming. I tend to be loose if the bullet is just a paragraph, but I tend to get really stiff if there's bolded "things" describing what's contained in a paragraph (i.e. "What's here" vs. "What's Here:").

Overall, I have a real beef with some aspects of capitalization standards, when you start out a section, it should be capitalized with the exception of verbs. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 22:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You are not alone, others have found our style to be unusual. Nevertheless, it is our style and has been from the beginning. We're not likely to change it, as it would mean changing about a million articles. -Will Beback 22:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's the beef I currently have with the capitalization convention, as I do ask that this has to be changed, even though a million articles is going to have to be modified because of this. I wholeheartedly have to stay my course that the capitalization rules are flawed because of what I'm going through right now. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 02:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Just because of what you're going throught? Let's ask what's best for the articles. And I think our articles are better off without superfluous uppercase letters. —ptk✰fgs 03:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Given Sue Anne's harsh criticism, I still prefer "This Paragraph" to describe a header as opposed to "This paragraph". — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 04:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
A) I don't think my criticism was all that harsh.[3].
B) I don't see why it's being brought into this discussion.
C) I agree with what the other editors have said. This is a style choice based on The Chicago Manual of Style and is a better way of doing things and makes things easier to read.
--Sue Anne 05:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Objection to items A and C. For item A, you were acting way too harsh and impolite. For item C, given that you agree with people who favor Chicago style, I'm going to have to seek a WP:3O on this if by all means possible, as the exception to this is when you, for the least, describe headers. The Chicago Manual of Style shouldn't apply to headers. Not to be disruptive, but that is still my beef with WP's MOS. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 22:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Vesther, you are welcome to seek a change in our manual of style. However please follow it while you are pursuing the change. Intentionally formatting articles in defiance of our MOS is disruptive. -Will Beback 09:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I never defy the MOS, neither I do mass-editing unless it's for the benefit of the surfer. In fact, I don't edit articles that I don't know about (as I tend to leave those articles alone for almost all of the time unless I have to correct the coding), but I only edit the articles that I know about (i.e. the games I played all my life, the shows that I tend to like watching, etc.). :P — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 22:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the same capitalization style throughout. Article titles and section headings both use the “sentence case” style, so only the first word and proper nouns get capitalized, just like a normal sentence. Wikinews uses the same style for its headlines. I see no reason to single out bulletted lists for a different style. Sentence case is easy to implement because it’s the same in all contexts — it requires less effort from editors. I think it’s also better for readers. When they read the text, they can be confident that when they encounter a capitalized word, it’s that way because it’s a proper noun. When you capitalize everything, capitalization no longer carries any weight. Other places are free to use title case, but let Wikipedia stick with sentence case consistently.

This “everything but verbs” style you mention is something totally new to me. Can you refer me to any publication that uses it? --Rob Kennedy 19:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Check out any newspaper article either on print or online. I hope that clears any confusion you might have (i.e. http://www.chicagotribune.com, or http://www.washingtonpost.com). — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 22:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The Washington Post uses title case for its headlines (e.g., “Bush Staunchly Defends U.S. Strategy in Iraq”). The Chicago Tribune uses sentence case (e.g., “Cop kills attacking pit bull”). Neither matches the “everything but verbs” capitalization style you suggested. Could you please provide a specific example from either of those papers that demonstrates the style you’re asking for? --Rob Kennedy 22:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
OK maybe I'm too vague, but here's a good example on when to use caps when it comes to titles and headers. Hope this helps. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 23:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. If you insist, then I'll provide more.
Addendum:—check out this link as well. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 23:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Your examples are of title case. Did you really mean to write that a section title “should be capitalized with the exception of verbs”?
There are different opinions concerning which words get capitalized in title case. The one I learned in school capitalized everything but unimportant short words (fewer than four letters). Chicago allows longer words to be lowercase, especially adverbs like through. Sentence case doesn’t give rise to this issue, though. In it, words are capitalized just like they are in regular body text.
So far, your only argument in favor of a different casing style is that it looks better to you, and you even admit that it’s a rather weak reason. You’re going to have to do better than that if you hope to sway Wikipedia away from its current style. (You’re also going to have to demonstrate that you have a clear idea of what you’re asking for, which your Apple.com examples don’t accomplish.) --Rob Kennedy 01:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political adjectives and person-nouns

I suggest that we add the following rule: communist(ic), socialist, liberal, conservative, libertarian, democrat(ic) and republican shall only be capitalized if they refer to a specific political party having the word (or a variant or cognate thereof) in its name. NeonMerlin 00:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] this page title

as the section dictates about headings, why isn't this page title "Manual of style"? --gatoatigrado 23:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The title of this page is not a section heading, so the section-heading rule doesn’t quite apply here. Instead the title is governed by Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Lowercase second and subsequent words, which starts as follows:

Convention: Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun …

(Emphasis added) In the context of this article, Manual of Style is a proper noun refering to the document made up of the collection of related Wikipedia pages. It’s not just any style manual; it’s the manual for Wikipedia, and its title is Manual of Style. The University of Chicago Press and The Guardian happen to have chosen the same title for their respective style manuals, too, and all are capitalized. --Rob Kennedy 05:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Musical genre

I've added a rule over capitalization in musical genres, as I'm changing the capitalization of musical genres a lot lately and I felt it's about time to have a proper guideline over the issue. Michaelas10 (T|C) 14:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] incorrect spelling "Ancient Greece", "Ancient Rome", "Ancient Egypt", etc.

These kinds of spelling errors are very common in WP and this article doesn't seem to provide any guidance. See also Category_talk:Ancient_Greece#incorrect_spelling_.22Ancient_Greece.22.2C_.22Ancient_Rome.22.2C_.22Ancient_Egypt.22.2C_etc. and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=80972773 --Espoo 10:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] historical periods

Partly due to total lack of guidance for many fields on this project page, there is total chaos on WP in capitalisation in many fields, not just history, and the Lawyer Mania of Capitalising Every IMPORTANT Word and then 'adding' "OTHER" Means of emphasis is spreading like wildfire.

"Ancient Japan", "Classical Japan", "Pre-Columbian", and "Colonial America", are all spelled incorrectly. The accepted practice in this field (as shown by Britannica and those university and museum sites i found) seems to demand that these examples and in fact most historical periods be spelled without capitalisation. The only exceptions to this default rule seem to be major geological eras (even those unknown to the general public) and only those historical periods that are well-known and used in general English. The reason "Communist China" as the name of a historical period is capitalised is not because it's a period but because it's the name of a country and therefore a proper noun (despite not being the official name of the country).

I guess the reasoning is that all periods unknown to the general public are essentially descriptive and not really proper nouns; this is especially true of periods that are not clearly defined or that are defined in different ways by different authorities. http://today.uci.edu/resources/word.asp?key=370 says: historical periods and events Capitalize names of widely recognized epochs in history: the Dark Ages, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Civil War, the Atomic Age, Prohibition, the Great Depression. Capitalize only the proper name in general descriptions of a period: medieval France, the Victorian era, the fall of Rome. For additional guidance, follow the capitalization in Webster’s New World Dictionary.

Looks like there is a huge amount of cleaning up to do on WP and looks like the misspelling of "ancient" that some of us have drastically reduced is only the tip of the iceberg... --Espoo 09:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This not a misspelling - it is a difference in style. You may be more familiar with not capitalising, others are more familiar with capitalising. Both are right
I often see Ancient rather than ancient Greece, and Imperial rather than imperial Rome. I'm not convinced we need to dictate one particular rule. Let the authors of each article address style issues based on what is most suitable for the audience they are targetting the article at. Different articles will be targetted at different audience. We shouldn't presume that a one-size-fits-all style is desirable here, jguk 18:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Can you cite some reputable sources where you've seen the capitalised spelling? As explained on Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_2#Category:Education_in_Ancient_Greece, the non-capitalised spelling is the established practice in both US and UK spelling on reputable sites and in other reputable sources and in the WP articles. --Espoo 18:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Just search on google to get a guide as to common usage, which is what I'm referring to here, jguk 21:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
That comment is too vague and doesn't support your claim. Did you even bother to look at the link i provided? My extensive research using Google to find reputable sites shows that "ancient" should not be capitalised and that is the general consensus on WP. --Espoo 06:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The link you provided was to some guidance in a style manual. But the style advocated in that style manual is far from universal. See, for example, [4], [5], [6], [7]. Yes, "ancient Greece" seems more common than "Ancient Greece", but the latter capitalisation has a reasonable level of currency. Certainly enough for us not to say it is wrong. If authors believe a style using the latter is suitable for the audience they are targetting, then they should be allowed to use it, jguk 08:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean the link i quoted from. I meant this: As explained on Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_2#Category:Education_in_Ancient_Greece, the non-capitalised spelling is the established practice in both US and UK spelling on reputable sites and in other reputable sources and in the WP articles. That has this link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=80972773#Noncontroversial_proposals with the following links to reputable US and UK sites that are much more authoritative than what you found: but "ancient" is not usually capitalised by careful spellers or reference works even in connection with other countries that don't have modern equivalents. e.g. "ancient Rome" (and the equivalent to "ancient Egypt" of "ancient Greece") in Britannica 2000 and on these reputable US and UK pages (I honestly didn't find or leave out contradictions): [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], Culture_of_ancient_Rome, Ancient_Rome (only one misspelling), Roman_Empire, History_of_Rome (several misspellings), etc.
The sites you provide are problematic, not reputable, amateur, or non-native English, and they either contradict your claim or their capitalisation of "ancient" is only one of many other aspects of their unprofessional editing and lack of expertise:
  • link 1) "the library is created by students"
  • 2) despite hype claiming to be "part of the Granada Learning group of companies - the leading force in UK Education, with a wide range of expertise in all key areas" the important info in that hype is that the site is made by a company, not an outfit that can hold a candle to the reputable sites i listed. It also has the following kind of sloppy and amateur capitalisation back and forth on http://www.angliacampus.com/learn/sec/history/ancemp01/ : "Why did the Ancient civilizations of Egypt, Greece and Rome have such large empires? This is a question that has caused a lot of arguments amongst historians. Was it as a result of their military power? Or did trade and peaceful contact with other countries have more to do with it? Travel back in time 3,000 years, explore the ancient empires of Egypt, Greece and Rome and decide for yourself."
  • 3) a Greek site, i.e. absolutely no authority on English spelling
  • 4) proves my point and disproves your claim: This link only misspells once with a capital in what may be an incorrect quote from a site whose link doesn't work ("Index of Maps of Ancient Greek World: This page provides an index to the maps of Ancient Greece..."), all other cases are headings. --Espoo 18:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The links I provided demonstrate usage. I'd add that if individual editors did not sometimes adopt the same usage, you would not have the issue arising here. jguk 18:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
As i showed, the links you provided demonstrate amateur and unprofessional usage, and the only one that doesn't do that proves your claim wrong. I also checked out the links listed on that fourth site that you provided (e.g. http://www.museum.upenn.edu/Greek_World/Index.html), and they all follow established museum and encyclopedia usage. In addition, all reputable sites i have found in extensive Internet research never capitalise "ancient" in this context. WP should follow established usage on reputable sites and in other reputable sources. I'm pretty sure you won't be able to find a single museum or university site in any English-speaking country that capitalises "ancient". WP is not interested in the sloppy usage demonstrated by your non-reputable sites. --Espoo 19:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Espoo let me know about this discussion through my talk page. There's widespread support, I think, for following what MOS implies and using "ancient Greece", "ancient Rome", etc. In addition to the evidence provided by Espoo, you can see the discussion at Talk:Gymnasium (ancient Greece). I have little doubt that if the same discussion were carried out on other classically-themed articles the result would be the same, and that's because most editors working on these articles prefer to follow the example of well-established academic usage. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acronymns and initial capitals

Can anyone recommend which is correct in the case of Minimum Number of Individuals or Minimum number of individuals, which clearly need to be merged. Normal MOS would be for Minimum number of individuals, except that the community of people likely to look it up would expect Minimum Number of Individuals, because it is normally abbreviated to MNI, not mni or Mni. Viv Hamilton 20:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Both articles already get it right in the body text. They call it the minimum number of individuals. That should be the title of the article, but the first letter should be capitalized since we use title case for article titles.
Acronyms are created by taking the first letters of the constituent words and writing them together in capitals. That doesn’t mean that, to re-form the original phrase, we should keep the capitals. For example: CD, compact disc; IM, instant message; DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid; LED, light-emitting diode; etc. --Rob Kennedy 00:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
(Someone already beat me to it, but I figure I might as well post anyway.)
If the idea is to have a single article at one title, with the other article becoming a redirect to the first, then I don't think it matters too much how people are most likely to look it up; either way, they'll get the right article. So I'd say that it's more important to use the title that best conforms to Wikipedia:Naming Conventions. (That said, one of Wikipedia's naming conventions is use common names of persons and things, so the two issues are somewhat interconnected.)
I don't think the all-caps-ness of the initialism, taken alone, is reason to title-case its expansion; consider LED ("light emitting diode"), TV ("television"), LCD ("liquid crystal display"), BP ("blood pressure"), and so on. Indeed, it's my impression that all-caps are used for most non-acronymic initialisms, even when their expansions are all-lowercase; the only exceptions I can think of offhand are units of measurement (rpm, dpi, psi, etc.), various Internet colloquialisms (brb, lol, etc.), and a few common statistics initialisms (pdf, cdf, etc.).
That's just my opinion, though.
Ruakh 00:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:scaps

I'm planning to nominate template:scaps (see Interstate 469#Interchanges for an example of it in use - "U.S. Route 24 West") for deletion, since it violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Directions and regions. Will I have support if I do so? --NE2 06:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this sort of use is what Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Directions and regions is referring to. Even if it is, that's an argument for using {{scaps|west}} rather than {{scaps|West}}, not an argument for eliminating {{scaps}} altogether. —RuakhTALK 14:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Either way, it's using capital letters to look "pretty", when lowercase letters contain the same informational content. --NE2 15:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's using small-caps, which are not the same as capital letters. And if all we care about is informational content, then why do we even have a style guide? How does the existence of a style guide contribute to Wikipedia's informational content? —RuakhTALK 15:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Huh? The style guide coordinates style so the information is easier to access. --NE2 17:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
So if, for example, an article had some Headings That Were Title-Cased and some Headings that had only the first letter capitalized, that would make the information more difficult to access? —RuakhTALK 17:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone else give an opinion? Is it okay to throw style out because we want our articles to look like road signs? --NE2 08:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not someone else (obviously), but I'll give my opinion that no, we shouldn't throw style out. I just don't think {{scaps}} does so. —RuakhTALK 13:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It seems the template’s entire purpose is to promote a style for directions in road-related tables. A noble goal. I don’t like the implementation of it, though. The template encodes a specific choice of style in its name. I’d prefer that the template be named, say, {{direction}} instead, so that if the preferred style for directions on road tables changes, the template can be editted without making its name meaningless.
However, I don’t think this is a good choice of style. Wikipedia articles are not road signs and are not subject to laws and guidelines governing the appearance of road signs. Just write the directions using normal case. Capitalized or not, I don’t really care. --Rob Kennedy 02:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undue(?) absence of capitals

What to do with things that are clearly proper names, but don't have any capitals at all?

For instance, suppose the Derailing Ukuleles produce a CD with the following track list:

  1. country roads
  2. my bonnie hills
  3. hell is other people
  4. anonymous recursion

Now, I would change these to "Country Roads", "My Bonnie Hills", and so on, but not every editor does that. What is our policy on this? Considering these are proper names, I think they should have at least one capital at the beginning. About the others I'm not so certain, mainly because artists who do use caps vary in this respect.

Should we use the same rule we apply to all caps, i.e. "WAR BEGINS TODAY" → "War Begins Today", therefore "war begins today" should also become "War Begins Today"? Shinobu 04:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Proper nouns are ordinarily capitalized, but if the owner of a name chooses not to capitalize it, then that's what goes. The complication is, sometimes the track list that comes with the CD uses lowercased names as a cool (*cough*) stylistic thing, but then press releases and so on do use titlecased names. When this is the case, I think the titlecased names are the correct ones for Wikipedia's purposes. (Sometimes the lowercased form really is the correct form, though, as with e.g. "birthright israel", "eBay", and so on; in these cases, lowercased forms even occur on legal documents, articles of incorporation, and so on.) —RuakhTALK 20:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, but see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)#Trademarks which begin with a lowercase letter. —RuakhTALK 15:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Although I agree with sticking to the way an artist names a song, with the artist's capitalization scheme, that rule applies only to trademarks. Song names are not trademarks. Nicholas SL Smithchatter 02:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The capitalization guidelines of WikiProject Music are pretty close to the parts of our Manual of Style about proper names and trademarks and overall consistent with the title case we commonly apply to all other published works (i.e. books and films). Hence it would by "My Bonnie Hills". - Cyrus XIII (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization of "to be"

I was wondering what the conventions on forms of the verb "to be" in titles (in reference to albums, songs and the like) were. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to locate a page where Wikipedia's policy on this issue is outlined. I personally prefer to omit capitalization in such cases (Johnny Cash is Coming to Town instead of Johnny Cash Is Coming to Town; the former has been redirected to the latter, as is the case with Happiness is You), but if Wikipedia has a different opinion on the matter, I'll abide by the rules. Thanks in advance. Cromag 09:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The forms of be are always capitalized in titles, as they're verbs. (I'm exaggerating slightly with "always", as you can always find an exception, but I've never come across a newspaper that doesn't capitalize forms of be when using titlecase.) Indeed, the only words that aren't capitalized in titles are articles (a, an, and the), the particle to in full infinitives, conjunctions (especially and and to a lesser extent or; details vary by house style), and prepositions (especially short ones; again, details vary). —RuakhTALK 16:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, I stand corrected. I'll start implementing this rule in my previous and future contributions. Cromag 13:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Airline Pages

I believe that Fleet tables as well as basic heading titles for categories should be capitalized. It is improper grammar not to do this. Also, fleet tables should be exempt from this policy as not many things look too good without being capitalized.--68.41.96.184 21:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Table headings are capitalized. Was there some dispute about that? You seem to be proposing a policy that headings of fleet tables be capitalized, but then you ask that fleet tables be exempt from that policy. I don’t understand.
Also, note that it’s not a grammar issue at all.
(And for those who were wondering, like I was, what a “fleet table” is, I’m guessing it’s simply the tables found in the “Fleet” sections of various airline articles, such as at United Airlines or Midwest Airlines.) --Rob Kennedy 22:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm guessing that 68.41.96.184 means we should use title-case (capitalize almost every word) rather than just capitalize the first word. If so, I disagree, not because I'm a particularly big fan of the existing policy, but because I don't see why this is special enough to warrant an exception to an otherwise consistent policy. —RuakhTALK 23:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional races from other planets

I don't know what is right and could use some help clarifying. Do you capitalize fictional races from other planets? For example: a person from Mars is a Martian, according to that article, in caps. Ditto with people from Melmac (planet) and others. But, as a species name, we don't capitalize "human". (But would "Earthling" be capitalized?) The debate is on the Dragon Ball articles where editors are going back and forth capitalizing and not-capitalizing names such as Saiyan, Namek, etc. Any thoughts on this? JRP 14:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it probably depends on the source; if the source capitalizes the name of the race, then it should be capitalized, and if not, then it shouldn't. For example, the aliens in Nemesis are called "prokaryotes" (which is actually a normal biology term, referring to single-celled organisms without membrane-bound organelles), but the aliens in Star Trek are called "Klingons", "Romulans", etc. BTW, "human" is a bad comparison, because humans aren't currently thought of as an ethnic group; but if sentient races existed on other planets and we had serious interactions with them, then we'd probably start to think of humans as an ethnic group and start writing "Human". At least, so I'd think. (Maybe not, though; whites and blacks interact a lot in the U.S., and it's mostly only overt racists who treat them as ethnic groups and write "Whites" and "Blacks".) —RuakhTALK 16:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
You’re right in noticing that human isn’t capitalized, but Earthling is. Like Martian, it’s derived from the name of the planet, and so Namekian should be capitalized after the planet Namek. Various Star Trek races are frequently treated akin to nationalities, which is sufficient reason to capitalize them — would it be appropriate to think of the other Dragon Ball Z groups that way, too? --Rob Kennedy 19:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm in a similar position. A lot of Warcraft articles have the names of the races capitalized. At the WoWWiki, the editors have decided to keep the race names lowercase in the same way Blizzard refers to them in game. Example, the soldiers are of the tauren or night elf races. --Htmlism 22:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
How does Tolkien do it? Orcs, elfs, dwarfs, hobbits, ents, maia, etc. I seem to recall that most of the cases were lower-cased, but on the other hand, I do recall talk of Men.
In any context, I believe the way it works is that a species is lower-cased while a nationality is capitalized. So, regarding the original question, saiyans lived on the planet Vegeta, slaves to Freeza's empire. On Earth lives humans and furries, collectively known as Earthlings. –Gunslinger47 02:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, Tolkien does capitalize the names of those races. Secondly, just an FYI, he writes not of "Elfs" and "Dwarfs", but of "Elves" and "Dwarves". ("Elves" is actually the universally-used plural of "elf", whereas "dwarfs" was the more common plural before Tolkien, and is still used except when referring to magical races.) —RuakhTALK 04:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I forgot which way it was. I remember that he insisted on writing it one way or another and his editors kept "correcting" him. –Gunslinger47 22:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's not a question of "races". The point is that Mars is a proper name, which makes Martian a proper adjective, therefore capitalized. We don't capitalize "human", but would capitalize "Terran", for the same reason. (And surely we would capitalize Earthman; an earthman is presumably someone who sells dirt.) --Trovatore 07:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] After a colon

People are taught different rules about whether the first letter after a colon should be capitalized. This may reflect a difference in American versus British usage. Sometimes this gives rise to little disputes and edit skirmishes. As far as I can see the MoS is silent on the issue. I propose adding a small section to this submanual with the following suggested "compromise" rule:

Use a capital letter after a colon only if the colon could be replaced by a full stop.

In other words, only when the colon separates two sentences that each can stand on their own.
Examples:

  • His next move surprised me: He extended his hand as if in friendship. (OK)
  • I desire many things: Chocolate, kisses, and love. (wrong; 2nd part not a sentence)

The proposed rule does not say that a capital letter ever should be used in this position, only that it may be used. What do people think?  --LambiamTalk 21:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't read that sentence the way that you're saying you intend it; I realize that "only if" is sometimes used in math as the opposite of "if" (due apparently to a misunderstanding of the structure of "if and only if"), but in a non-technical context it does not have that meaning, and instead means the same as "if and only if". How about this instead:
Do not use a capital letter after a colon, except optionally in cases where the colon could be replaced by a full stop (period).
? —RuakhTALK 22:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


I've removed the following for discussion:

Different rules exist also concerning the question whether the first letter after a colon should be capitalized. The following guidelines form a compromise between the various conventions in use.

  1. Do not use a capital letter after a colon.
  2. An exception to 1 may be made if the colon could be replaced by a full stop.
In other words, if you use a capital letter, do so only when the colon separates two sentences that each can stand on their own.
Examples:
  • Correct: His next move surprised me: He extended his hand as if in friendship.
  • Incorrect: I desire many things: Chocolate, kisses, and love. (Here the second part is not a sentence.)

It may be that U.S. style guides suggest a capital after a colon in the way suggested at 2, but looking at all the U.S. published books on my shelves, I can't find one that does this. The only times in normal usage that a word is capitalised after a colon (aside from proper names, etc.) are:

  1. In titles (not all style guides support this; personally I don't do it, but it's a respectable approach)
    "The Problem of Evil: A Reader"
  2. When the colon introduces a new sentence (which is usually but not always placed in inverted commas, italicised, or placed on a new line and indented).
    "Again, from a parliamentary report:
    No formal request has been made..."

The latter is simply a version of the normal rule, that capitals are used after full stops (including question marks and exlamation marks when they stand for full stops), to introduce quotations, for proper names, etc. The mere fact that a clause could stand on its own as a sentence isn't grounds to start it with a full stop (after all, that could be true of what follows a comma, and is usually true of what follows a semicolon).

The suggested guideline is in any case too complicated. All that's needed is: don't use a capital letter after a colon except to start a quotation that starts with a capital letter. If people disagree with me about titles (I haven't checked; that's almost certainly already dealt with in the appropriate place), then that proviso could be added. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Individual typographical choices for personal names

A couple of times I've come across debates on Talk pages concerning capitalisation of a proper name when the bearer has chosen to use all lower caser case (I suppose that the same would apply to all upper case, and other variations). The Japanese singer hide, for example, spelt his name with no initial capital; the standard approach in most publications would be to respect this, capitalising ithe name only at the beginnings of sentences. I can find no mention of such cases in the MoS, though (or anywhere else). have I missed it? If I haven't could we reach agreement on a guideline, and include it here? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As I have already outlined on the talk page of the example Mel Etitis mentioned, my approach would be to apply (and if necessary extend) WP:NC#Album titles and band names and WP:MOS-TM and give standard English text formatting and capitalization rules the preference over typographic eccentricities, in order to maintain a unified approach and make affected articles more readable in general. In this particular case for example, it is only obvious through context that one is reading the artist's stage name and not the verb "hide". - Cyrus XIII 15:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
In this particular case, I must admit that I don't see much genuine scope for confusion (first, few sentences could use "hide" as either a verb or a name and still make any sense; secondly, in any case, given that it's an article on a person called "hide", it would be a very slow reader who didn't pick up on the fact that it's meant as a name). The question is, though, more general. WP:NC#Album titles and band names doesn't cover this issue (it doesn't mention initial capitals), and I'm afraid that I disagree with what is said about the first case in WP:MOS-TM#Trademarks which begin with a lowercase letter (though the the second two cases make sense — and it's difficult to see why they're not extended to cover the first). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyrus XIII has now edited the article to change all the capitalisation to his preferred style, on the grounds that no-one has answered here, and one newspaper article does the same. Any chance of some discussion on this?

When E.E. Cumming's name was presented in lower case by his publishers, newspapers, magazines, and books followed suit, respecting what they believed to be the author's preferred typography (this page gives some of the history, with clear accounts (including quotations from letters, etc.) of respected academic publishers being prepared to decapitalise the name, but asking for details). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A few points which I would like to add:
  • That one newspaper article was written by noted music journalist Neil Strauss and published in the New York Times, which is quite an established publication.
  • I have previously contacted Mel Etitis on his talk page, asking whether he would consider the article a sufficient enough source to settle this dispute, or whether we should put in for a third opinion over at WP:3O. After three days without reply, I changed the article in question to my preferred style as it has been put.
  • Because of Mel Etitis reverts of these and other, rather uncontroversial changes to the article, I have now put in for a third opinion.
- Cyrus XIII 11:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. Different publications have different styles; the question is what we should do. Note that our MoS differs from that of the New York Times in many respects.
  2. I'm sorry that I was too busy to reply within three days; I hadn't realised that that was the deadline, though.
  3. I rather thought that asking for other opinions was what I was doing here... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the rules regarding lowercase-beginning trademarks would be good to apply here as well. I have always thought this article at The Slot summarizes the arguments well. You have to draw the line somewhere and tomorrow someone could decide their name was "iNTERNETaBcDeFgHiJkLmNoPqRsTuVwXyZ.com." Grouse 13:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There are surely significant differences between what we say about logos and what we say about personal names. A logo is generally different from the official name of a company; in most cases the official name conforms to normal usage. Similarly for the choices of typeface and style for the names of bands: not only do they differ from the official names, but they often vary from album to album, from press release to press release, etc. Personally I deprecate the use of non-standard capitalisation in such names (and in personal names); it's a silly gimmick, and I lose some respect for those who go in for it — but it's a fact that that's how they give their name. (The document to which you link, by the way, is itself contentious in places. the first point they maek – that people glancing through text only register capitalised words – just doesn't seem to stand up, and is in any case irrelevant here. We're not writing for people who only glance through the text, even if journalists are.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for arriving this late. Thanks for notifying me about this discussion, Cyrus. I agree with Mel Etitis and Grouse. Whenever I saw the line The correct name of this individual is xxx. It is capitalized due to technical restrictions, I always felt tempted to change it to This individual can't even spell their own name correctly. The word "correct" was the most annoying -- correct according to what? I would understand if it was in Vladimir Putin's article, saying that The correct name of this indiviual is Влади́мир Влади́мирович Пу́тин, but names written in an English wikipedia about English-speaking people with English names should follow the rules of the English grammar. I don't think anyone is important enough to have the rules of grammar changed for them.

This issue comes up most often in the articles of various Japanese singers and several music albums. It is often impossible to find out whether the name of that music album indeed has to be spelled this way, or is it in uppercase only because it looks better that way. I have lots of books and music albums, and just taking now a quick glance at all the books and CDs that are currently on my table, all of them except for two CDs have their articles in all caps, just because it looks good. I guess at least 90% of all books ever published have the title on the title page in all caps. Still we don't write those titles in all caps, because everyone with a sound mind realizes this is just a question of typography, a part of the artwork. (And those two CDs that are exceptions have their titles in spall caps and italics; how will we manage to write article titles in italics?)

As I wrote on the talk page of the Bell Hooks article, it doesn't matter how does an individual write his or her name, or how does it appear in books. IMO in importance grammar comes first, personal preferences second. It can be mentioned in their article if their preference of this unusual spelling plays an important role in their life, but spelling their name in lowercase is:

  1. grammatically incorrect
  2. makes the text harder to read (some users' insistence on using the lowercase version was so intense that they used it even at the beginnings of sentences, which made the whole text flow together as if the article were one long sentence)
  3. and on overall makes Wikipedia seem less serious.

In addition, it is potentially confusing for non-native English speakers, especially if the should-be-capitalized name is similar to other nouns, e.g. when reading an article about feminism, and seeing bell hooks mentioned in the middle of a sentence just like this, in lowercase, I stopped for a few seconds, not knowing what a bell hook is and what does it have to do with feminism.

Proper names should be capitalized and this should be included in the Manual of Style. I have to add that I'm sad that it has to be included -- in my native language's Wikipedia it doesn't have to be included in the MoS, as it had already been included in grammar books for seven-year-olds, but judging from the edit wars in some articles, apparently some people have skipped those.

(Sorry if I sound harsh, but I feel strongly about this issue.)

– Alensha talk 01:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you should note that it's possible to feel strongly while remaining polite. (Perhaps in your native language's Wikipedia that's not considered important, but here it is.) Saying that you're "sad" that people disagree with you, seeing as seven-year-olds should be taught to agree with you, is not polite.
Secondly, your vague references to "grammar" confuse me; what rule of grammar says that names should be misspelled? And where do we draw the line; does this mean that in general, if we consider a name to be grammatically incorrect, we should "correct" it? How about misspelled names? (Should we write "Outcast" instead of "OutKast"?) And how do we feel about people who change their names, or use pseudonyms? Should we "correctly" use their birth names?
You'll note that major news organizations generally use correct names; see http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=ebay&btnG=Search+News for example, and note that most news organizations use "eBay" (except at the start of a sentence, where they're about evenly divided between "eBay" and "EBay"). There are a few that write "Ebay", but as of right now, all such put it right next to glaring grammatical errors (seemingly as a polite way of indicating that they're not even trying to be correct, though that can't really be the reason).
When news organizations and scholars don't capitalize a name, it makes Wikipedia look unprofessional to enforce a "grammatical" style that capitalizes it. You might as well say that Wikipedia should replace all instances of who with whom because the latter looks more correct.
—RuakhTALK 02:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid the more recent posts have introduced a few misunderstandings, I would like to sort them out before proceeding with an answer:
Alensha initially aligned herself with Grouse and Mel Etitis in this dispute, while actually these editors do not share the same opinion. Grouse and me consider the Manual of Style regarding trademarks (WP:MOS-TM) to be applicable to personal names and stage names, Mel Etitis - and I hope I am not misrepresenting his position - does not.
Now, Ruakh has mentioned eBay as an example for names which are generally not "corrected" in most publications. Yet, eBay is the trademarked name of a company, not a personal name. If it was out of question to apply that bit of the MoS about trademarks for any name whatsoever, we would not be having this discussion.
Regarding drawing the line: I believe the rule Alensha is referring to is one regarding personal names and proper nouns, namely "as proper nouns these names are always first-letter capitalized" (quoting Wikipedia:Proper names#Personal names). In the initial discussion (on Talk:Hide (musician)), Mel Etitis has considered people's individual typographical choices important enough to override this rule, but not at the beginning of a sentence. Now please consider that eBay for which we have a guideline, is not first-letter capitalized, even at the beginning of a sentence.
Indulge me for a second: I am currently looking at the mental image of a graph attached to my fridge, with little magnet markers on it. The graph says "rules I can override", one marker says "trademark" and the other says "personal name". "Trademark" is really high up on the graph, it gets to override pretty much all of the rules. "Personal name" is somewhere in the middle, it gets to topple some, but not all of them. Now, is this really a respectful way for treating those names? I think the implications for drawing the line somewhere are quite nasty and applying an already existing set of rules which has been deemed appropriate for all those products, companies and organizations out there, is at least a clean cut. - Cyrus XIII 09:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with much of what Cyrus XIII says here (and thanks to him for clearing up some misundrestandings that have crept in to the discussion). It is, of course, only at the end, where he gives his opinion of the treatment of personal names, that I disagree. It seems to me that some people wish to be addressed and referred to by a common noun (an uncapitalised name). Fine; the capitalisation rules of English say that common nouns are uncapitalised except at the beginnings of sentences. (Many (most?) Manuals of Style would say the same about a trade name such as "eBay", judging by printed sources that I've seen.) No rule of English is overridden, only the social conventions of naming, with which the Manual of Style is surely unconcerned. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

First, sorry if what I wrote came across as rude. Second, of course I meant to write "I agree with Cyrus XIII and Grouse" but it was already late at night when I wrote that and mixed up their names... sorry. By grammar I meant the rule that proper names should be capitalized. Cyrus pretty much cleared up what I mixed up. Thanks!
Mel says that some people wish to be referred to by a common noun. For me those names did not seem common nouns but uncapitalized proper nouns. The reason for this is that common nouns are generally preceded by articles, e.g. if "Michael" were a common noun, we would not write "michael said this and that", we would write "the michael said this and that", just like we would write "the teacher said", not "teacher said". From this it seems that these persons do treat their names as names, not common nouns. So actually the rule would be overridden.
Also, when deciding about how to write names in an article we should be reader-friendly. When someone's name is not capitalized, it is possible to write whole paragraphs without a single capital letter in them, which would make the paragraph difficult to read. "eBay" is different in this case, since the letter B fulfills the role that a capital E would do in "Ebay", but if their name would be spelt as "ebay", I'd say let's capitalize the first letter and mention it in the article that they don't capitalize it.
– Alensha talk 15:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Good point about common nouns — I'll withdraw that argument. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that there has recently been another comment on Talk:Hide (musician) in favor of capitalizing the name, can we conclude, that the majority of editors actively involved in this discussion are in favor of applying standard English formatting rules, with some of them considering WP:MOS-TM applicable in these cases? - Cyrus XIII 21:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not terribly clear to me, to be honest. It looks pretty well evenly divided — two on each side. The issue has been raised elsewhere, recently (see The pillows). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I am afraid the ratio is more like 2:1 by now and I would not have requested for this discussion to come to its due end, if it was any less clear.
In favor:
Not in favor:
  • Mel Etitis
  • Ruakh (though his argument is based on a trademark example, covered by WP:MOS-TM)
Regarding The Pillows: You previously dismissed one of my arguments on Talk:Hide (musician), stating "Cyrus XIII's point doesn't apply here; not only are we not dealing with an album or band name...", so please, practice what you preach and do not bring in a band name-related example either. Unless of course you would like me to point out the recent consensus to move KISS (band) to Kiss (band) and that bit of the Manual of Style which explicitly mentions Korn (KoЯn) as an example for stylized typography not to be carried over to Wikipedia. - Cyrus XIII 00:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. Please try not to be so confrontational; I didn't present The pillows as an argument, I mentioned that the issue had been raised elsewhere recently, and pointed you to an example.
  2. I missed Grouse's (indented and short) contribution (though 3:2 is not more like 2:1 &nmdash; it's 3:2, which is still not consensus).
  3. The Korn case is not analogous; leaving aside the difficulty of typing "KoЯn)", it involves an alien character, not merely the case of a letter. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I had been avoiding this particular discussion since it’s gotten a little hairy and all the arguments I would have made have already been stated. But Cyrus invited me to chime in, so here I am. You can include my name in the “in favor” list. People’s names get capitalized. That applies just as much to Bell Hooks and Hide as it does to the rest of us. I consider it in the readers’ best interest to capitalize proper nouns accordingly. --Rob Kennedy 03:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to weigh in in favor of respecting typographical choices for personal and even group names, such as bell hooks and CLAMP. Typography is not grammar, and when it comes to names, idiomatic typography may be considered by the parties involved to be as essential as idiomatic spelling. —pfahlstrom 00:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I also bring up the case of danah boyd whose legal name is lowercased (see its talk page), yet for some reason this statement is not even being allowed to exist in the article. I will see if anything can be done about that. —pfahlstrom 02:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Like Pfahlstrom, I'm chiming in in favor of respecting people's choice in how their names are written, be those personal names, professional names or band names. We have no right to choose how to spell their names, this would be original research and breaking NPOV (preferring one style over another). Spelling choices are verifiable and should follow the same rules as the inclusion of any material: WP:ATT. Kyaa the Catlord 06:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Like Rob Kennedy, I'm in favor of capitalizing all personal names and other proper nouns. The preference of the subject should definitely be mentioned in the article intro (and discussed elsewhere in the article if relevant to the subject's notability) but otherwise the article should conform to standard capitalization conventions. This is something that should be clarified in the guideline, as the guideline explicitly states that proper nouns should be capitalized in headings but is silent about body text. PubliusFL 23:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW WHS Rich Farmbrough, 18:31 1 October 2007 (GMT).
Translated from digispeak, "For what its worth, what he said." --Bejnar (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Cyrus XIII. Respect for a subject's unusual self-identification orthography/typography can be shown in the article. In the article about E. E. Cummings it should indicate that he preferred to sign his name on poetry as "e.e. cummings". --Bejnar (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It certainly does not look like a consensus has been reached here, and yet with edit, made a couple months after the discussion had died down without conclusion Elonka seems to have changed the styleguide to reflect the view that wikipedia shall never respect the idiomatic typographical choices of people, not withstanding any amount of verifiable sources, and without regard for how widely in use or in general acceptance the idiomatic capitalization is. Naturally that freed people to start "winning" the capitalization discussions by referring back to this styleguide, which now included text (which has since been tightened considerably by Cyrus XIII) for which no consensus had been reached. That's pretty disappointing. -- Charles (Kznf) (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bible

I often encounter "bible" although the rulemakers apparently agree it's "Bible". So would it be OK to add this: "Scriptures like the Bible and Qur'an should be capitalized"?

Which rulemakers do you mean? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant [17], although I will yield to someone with access to a better source. Art LaPella 22:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, not exactly rulemakers — and the vast majority of those hits aren't about capitalising the word "bible", but various things in the bible, such as pronouns, rivers, sections, etc. Similarly for a search on "don't capitalize Bible" or "don't capitalise Bible" (which throw up [http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1022664 this discussion[ between published writers, with no real consensus (but very strongly, not to say bullyingly, expressed opinions from a few of the contributors). There's also a Christian site that sometimes capitalises and sometimes doesn't:
("Christianity Magazine: Archive - Mending marriages, created by God ...British Christian magazine with bible teaching, book and music reviews, ... good place to capitalise on the situation, though it is facing difficult times. ...
www.christianitymagazine.co.uk/engine.cfm?i=92&id=285&arch=1 - 94k -
In fact I'm pretty well neutral, leaning towards capitalisation, but I'm not sure that there's a clear consensus on the issue (though I think that North America goes in for rather more capitalisation than the U.K.). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have much experience with Britishisms, but after going through the links above I'd say there is a consensus on this issue. Some of the hits don't express an opinion, but the hits that do express an opinion on capitalizing "Bible" appear to be unanimous. Christianity Magazine's Google blurb uncapitalizes Bible, but clicking the link shows it capitalized in the text, and searching its archives I found about 40 Bibles and 1 bible. The blog you cited also came to a consensus - the advocate of uncapitalizing concluded "I totally accept that I was outside the norm in not capitalising Bible, will try to do better". Anyway, the blog is open to all writers and doesn't strike me as being as authoritative as several sites like [18] . Art LaPella 00:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree that the blog showed a consensus; it involved some evidence for the use of the uncapitalised form, followed by some (simply incorrect, but very strongly worded) claims that non-capitalisation was grammatically incorrect; that seemed to bully the original poster into saying that he'd been wrong. There's a lot of bullying in this area, usually involving poor arguments expressed very strongly; we see it on Wikipedia too.
As I tend to capitalise it myself, in most but not all circumstances, I'm easy, though I don't think that there's a clear argument either way. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
"The Bible", in reference to the Jewish Bible or to the Christian Bible, should definitely be capitalized; that's definitely the norm. Similarly with "Bible" used as to modify another noun, as in "Bible scholars" and "Bible translations", and with specific translations and copies when described as "bibles", as in "the Breeches Bible" and "he had several Bibles in his office". When used metaphorically, as in "the C bible" (the definitive book on the C programming language, written by its creators), it should not be. I'm not sure about the adjective "Biblical", though, as in "Biblical figures"; my instinct is to capitalize it, but I think Americans and Britons might differ over that. —RuakhTALK 03:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, when referring to a specific holy book, it is capitalized. both Biblical and biblical are grammatically correct, I don't know why the manual of style choose just one for the Bible, but made Koranic, normally capitalized, and left leeway for other texts. Rds865 (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exit numbers

Should exit numbers (like "exit 60") be capitalized? I don't think they should be, but it's been argued that they are proper nouns. (The specific case is Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey), but it applies to many highway articles.) --NE2 00:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

To do a little bit of copy-and-pasting from my prior discussion with NE2 on the matter:
It seems to me that it's a specific location, and would be capitalized the same way any road – or even the East Los Angeles Interchange – would be. The fact that it's numbered instead of actually named the way that example is shouldn't make a difference; while a bit of a stretch, a good analogy would be how Interstate 90 and the Indiana Toll Road are both capitalized.
A search of Google News for Exit 5 yields 29 / 35 results capitalized, an overwhelming majority. I understand why that "tendancy to avoid" (in response to NE2: "Wikipedia tends to avoid capitalization when it's only done sometimes, like with directions.") would be a good idea in some situations, but IMHO it's pretty clear here that it should be capitalized. -- NORTH talk 00:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

After a little thinking, it seems my "gut feeling" is because it's similar to "mayor of New York" rather than "Mayor Giuliani": "exit 60 of I-295" rather than "Exit 60 Trenton/Belmar". --NE2 00:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, but I still think it's closer to my analogy (Interstate 90) than yours. -- NORTH talk 00:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Wellllll....if you want to get pedantic about it, "EXIT ###" would match what's most often seen on exit signs. ;-) However of pictures I've seen that don't use the CAPS LOCK that DOTs are so fond of, "Exit ###" seems to be the most commonly used format. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 01:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree that the exit number should be capitalised. Allegheny Valley Interchange/Exit 48 (Old Exit 4). The exit number would be the name of an interchange, and since it's a name, it's capitalized. Also to Aerobird, it seems that the non-caps lock variations are on newer signs, while older signs still use caps lock. I have a whole collection of exit sign pictures online somewhere that was for the sole purpose of illustrating that point...maybe one day it will have a real use. --MPD T / C 01:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think signage should be used as evidence one way or the other. Text documents from DOTs would be useful, though.

In response to the Giuliani analogy, on second thought, I'm not sure that's entirely correct. See Mayor of New York City. However, I think it would be "New York City mayor" - using New York City as an adjective for the common noun "mayor". Thus, perhaps it would be "Exit 60", but "Belmar exit"? -- NORTH talk 20:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you there, except where the interchanges are named. Like on the PA Turnpike or in LA. "Pittsburgh Interchange" but "Monroeville exit", since the former the name, the latter is a description I guess. There has to be somewhere that uses "Exit" like I cited "Interchange", so hopefully my parallel comes across. But to strictly address the issue of capitalizing "exit" in the article when referring to "exit" followed by the number, that should be acceptable, because I would see "Exit 60" as more of a proper noun, since it's the name of the exit...maybe a good parallel would also be "Route 4" or "Highway 4", not "route 4" or "highway 4". I sincerely hope I'm making sense. --MPD T / C 01:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chess variants

How names of chess variants should be capitalized? For example, what is correct (when used inside a sentence), a) Cylinder Chess, b) Cylinder chess or cylinder chess? I have a few books on chess variants and all of them use different capitalizations. Andreas Kaufmann 19:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "o" in "o'clock"

Would interested editors have a look at what's been happening at The 11 O'Clock Show? A user, after an abortive attempt to argue that we should change the capitalisation rules to allow the capitalisation of the preposition in "o'Clock", waited a while and then renamed this article. I've listed it as a (controversial) move back. Discussion would be welcome. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "S" in Church Street

When naming a particular road or street in any area, would it be correct to say "Church Street" or "Church street"? Thanks. --Sarcha 45 17:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The former. Look at your local newspaper for examples. --Rob Kennedy 22:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Van", "von", "de" in people's names

I was disappointed not to find some rule given here. This is what I learned ago:

  1. Interior of name or after title, not capitalised (unless person himself uses exceptional rule): Jon von Giovi, Baron von Cohen
  2. Beginning of sentence, capitalise (who would argue?)
  3. Others may disagree, but I learned for other cases (van, von, de all first), capitalise anyway: Von Braun, De Gaulle, Van Vooren

Perhaps these rules are centric to some cultures, not to others. Commentary? Later I add: article on capitalisation says what people do in other countries/languages for these names, but not for when used in English. Richard von Mises article looks like it was written to evade this issue; it even says "Mises stress", not "Von Mises stress" or "von Mises stress", like all textbooks call it.--MajorHazard 13:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the position can be summarised as follows:

  • If the person is American use capitals.
  • If they are not American, don't use capitals.

Using capitals is a quirk of American English only. Honbicot 19:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think not using capitals is quirk of e. e. cummings!--MajorHazard 02:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All-capital page names

I have started a discussion about the use of names that are spelt in all capitals, e.g. trademarks, in page titles at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks)#Capitals to lower case in page names, which may be of interest to people here. Mike Peel 07:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Example

This passage is a little odd:

Initial capitals and all capitals should not be used for emphasis. For example, "aardvarks, which are Not The Same as anteaters" and "aardvarks, which are NOT THE SAME as anteaters" are both incorrect. Use italics instead ("aardvarks, which are not the same as anteaters").

No emphasis is needed (or stylistically appropriate) in this example. Would anyone mind if I replaced the example with one in which italics are appropriate? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 06:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Please, have at it. --Rob Kennedy 16:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with section "Titles" as applied to military titles when used in a sentence

The section "Titles" is creating significant problems as to the capitalization of military titles when used in a sentence. For example someone edited Eric Shinseki to change Chief of Staff of the Army to chief of staff of the army - correct according to the section "Title" however not valid according to the Chicago Manual of Style. Also in the area of political titles, someone edited Administrator of the EPA to administrator of the EPA - correct according to the MOS, however almost certainly not valid according the to Chicago Manual of Style.

The capitalization rule from the Chicago Manual of Style seems to be that if a military title contains words that can mean something else, then the title must be be capitalized. I call it the ambiguity rule. For example when we write about the "Joint Chiefs of Staff", it's always capitalized because the words joint chiefs of staff are common words which could mean something else.

It's the same with the "Chief of Staff of the Army" - always capitalized in my view because "chief of staff" are common words with other meanings, and probably "army" is capitalized since it can be used in a term like "field army". However according to the Chicago Manual of Style if we are writing about "the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff", or presumably the "deputy Chief of Staff of the Army", the terms "chairman" and "deputy" are not ambiguous and so are not capitalized.

Note that according to the Chicago Manual of Style if we are describing a person's military title by itself - not in a sentence - then it's always capitalized. That is also the convention in Wikipedia. In military biography articles for example, the title listed for "Rank" is always capitalized - as in "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff".--Chrisbak 16:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we capitalize Joint Chiefs of Staff because it’s the name of a particular organization, not because it would be ambiguous otherwise — what else would it refer to? On the other hand, there’s no need to capitalize chief of staff in general because a chief of staff really is the chief of the staff — the one in charge of all the other workers. There’s no “other meaning” at play.
Eric Shinseki was the chief of staff of the Army. The word Army in this case is the proper name of the U.S. military branch, but it is just one army out of many in the world — note lowercased army that time.
Where you’re saying that military titles by themselves are capitalized, I assume you’re referring to §8.22: Exceptions to the general rule (15th edition). It’s not specific to military titles. About the only context I can think of that would be appropriate for Wikipedia is in infoboxes and navigation boxes. Where else do standalone titles occur often enough to bother addressing them in the style manual? The other circumstances §8.22 mentions are toasts, formal introductions, and “reasons of courtesy or politics.” None of those apply to Wikipedia. --Rob Kennedy 18:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] downtown Richmond vs. Downtown Richmond

should it be capitalized when referring to the neighborhood itself, not the city's neighborhood/area, It has it's own article also. I believe it should be capitalized since it is a proper noun (a name) of a particular place. Another editor has casted doubt on this and has changed the spelling on repeated ocasions so i am trying to make sure. Another editor states that D should be capitalized in this sense, but the other editor disagread. Perhaps several opinions may help ameliorate this situation. Thanks in advanceT ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 19:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In cases like this, you should probably look at newspapers. They all seem to lowercase the d: [19] --NE2 21:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
is that policy? and i was speaking of Downtown Richmond, Richmond, California, and Ricmond, California. Newspapers aside, what is the gramatical rule? when i asked on the help desk they said that it was a capital D.T ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 23:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems to be common sense to me. The California city is the same way: [20] --NE2 01:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When mentioning an article by name, the name should be capitalized

When an article is specifically mentioned by name – unlike when the topic of an article is mentioned – the name should be capitalized, because the name of the article is a proper noun.
(I hope it's obvious I'm not talking about most links in running text.)

For example:

For surfing on boards with mast and sail, see Windsurfing.

not:

For surfing on boards with mast and sail, see windsurfing.

Editors sometimes being sloppy with this is one thing, but I have recently seen correct capitalization being reverted because "article names aren't capitalized in sentences" (paraphrased). So there seems to be some need for a statement about this in the MoS (capital letters) that could be cited, and it could also be mentioned in a couple of other places such as Wikipedia:Hatnotes and Wikipedia:Disambiguation (any more suggestions?).

Assuming I am not confused about this, I would need some help with putting this into the guidelines. --Fyrlander 17:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you have the right idea. Your example isn’t talking about the act of windsurfing; it’s talking about the Wikipedia article titled Windsurfing. Titles get capitalized. See, for example, the “Cite this page” link, which capitalizes the cited article title the same way the name of the article appears. --Rob Kennedy 22:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RIAA Certifications

Should RIAA certifications such as the G in "Gold" or P in "Platinum" be capitalised? The RIAA capitalise it but would that be compatible with our MoS? In the 50 Cent discography page, an editor changed the format from "6x platinum" to "6x Platinum" on the basis that the RIAA use that format. MoS:TM says to capitalise trademarks like proper nouns, so would that include record certifications? Almost all discographies I see capitalise them, so I'm bringing this up here to if that format is correct on Wikipedia. Spellcast 13:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I just found the answer to my own question. http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php says: "The RIAA® also certifies Gold®, Platinum®, Multi-Platinum™, and Diamond sales awards". So yes, it does qualify as a trademark and should thus be capitalised. Spellcast 19:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

See Music_recording_sales_certification, if you want to say "They received an RIAA Gold plaque" then fine, but normally lower case would be fine, as they are awarded in many countries by many bodies (and historically in the U.S. by record companies themselves). Also worth checking the actual trademark, as it may have been done with a different or multiple capitalisations. Rich Farmbrough, 18:43 1 October 2007 (GMT).

[edit] Input requested on requested move

At Talk:Ftr#Requested move, there is a proposal to move ftr to FTR (bus), claiming that the lower-case trademark "ftr" should be presented in standard English as all capitals. I don't see that the guideline explicitly addresses this situation, in that "ftr" is not really an acronym and perhaps not even strictly speaking an abbreviation. WP:MOSTM recommends that lower case trademarks like adidas should be presented as proper nouns and capitalized accordingly as "Addidas". Input on this question is welcome at Talk:Ftr#Requested move. older ≠ wiser 17:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] President

I'm confused about the following paragraph:

In the case of "prime minister", either both words begin with a capital letter or neither, except, obviously, when it starts a sentence. Again, when using it generically, do not use a capital letter: "There are many prime ministers around the world." When making reference to a specific office, generally use uppercase: "The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said today…" (A good rule of thumb is whether the sentence uses a definite article [the] or an indefinite article [a]. If the sentence uses the, use "Prime Minister". If the sentence uses a, go with "prime minister". However to complicate matters, some style manuals, while saying "The British Prime Minister", recommend "British prime minister".)

Is this rule only applicable to the office of prime minister? For example when speaking of George W. Bush, the sentence "The (Pp)resident walked his dog." Should this be "The President walked his dog," due to the rule "When making reference to a specific office, generally use uppercase," as well as " good rule of thumb is whether the sentence uses a definite article [the] or an indefinite article [a]"? Stating "The president walked his dog" does not seem right to me. We're having this exact problem on Bush's page at the moment. Jpers36 03:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not limited to prime ministers, but it might be peculiarly British. I (being British) apply the same rule universally to all titles of office, and it is the rule suggested by the Oxford Manual of Style, but I've seen Americans dispute the validity of it before now. JulesH 16:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
This should work the same as "the university". Rich Farmbrough, 18:46 1 October 2007 (GMT).
What about the issue of referring to a specific title, rather than a generic title? A President, meaning a President of the USA, while a president means any type of president? really the title section is unclear and confusing. Rds865 (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Entente Cordiale

An editor has recently changed (in good faith) all occurrences of the Entente Cordiale to Entente cordiale - claiming that cordiale is a french adjective and so should not be capitalized. I countered this with the fact that all hits of "the entente cordiale" on Google Scholar are capitalized - which should it be? sbandrews (t) 17:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It is correct that French typography does not capitalise adjectives (can can see examples [21][22]. As to whether we apply the French typographical rules, I have no idea. Rama 17:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The" at the beginning of a title

I believe the common rule is that if a title or name begins with "the", then that word is not capitalized. This is certainly recommended by Oxford Manual of Style, and I believe it is by Chicago as well. However (1) this rule is not mentioned in this page, which it probably should be, and (2) is actually violated on this page, in the two mentions of the New York Times. Are there any objections to fixing this oversight? JulesH 16:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Volunteer (IRA)

A user has claimed that this discussion overrides the "Titles" section of this page and also this MedCab case. Assuming good faith (well, doing my best to), I thought I'd bring it here which perhaps should have been done first of all. The background is that certain terrorist organisations (the Provisional IRA for example) use the term "volunteer" to describe unpromoted members of the organisation. The bone of contention is whether or not we should capitalise the term, as the IRA itself apparently does. My own view is that it would be capitalised only as part of a name, eg "This is Volunteer O'Brien" and otherwise never "All volunteers were disarmed". Seems straightforward enough to me, any other opinions? --John 13:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The bone of contention in the mediation case was not whether it should be capitalised, but whether it should be used without the first instance qualification of "member". The mediation concluded that "member" should be used in the first instance, and all parties agreed to this. Capitalisation was an extra issue. Logoistic 12:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I would add that "volunteer" is sometimes used as a rank equivalent to "private" and sometimes generically to mean "member" of the IRA. Also sources, including IRA ones, sometimes use "Volunteer" (capitalsied) and sometimes "volunteer" (lower case), so there is not an unambiguous lead from sources. Tyrenius 13:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
If one examines the historical dialogue between the two editors, their personal agreement set a good precedent for referring to IRA Volunteers of any flavour in Irish themed articles. The capitalisation of "V" is very useful in alerting the casual reader to the difference between volunteer and Volunteer. WP:IAR?
In the same way we would say "all British Army soldiers were disarmed" rather than "all British Army privates were disarmed", I assume that in any case we would say "all Provisional/Real/Continuity IRA members/fighters/terrorists were disarmed" rather than "all Provisional/Real/Continuity IRA volunteers were disarmed... Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) | talk  • 15:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Their personal agreement, while personally meritorious, does not set a precedent that overrides the more central consensuses I mention above, in my opinion. I would not agree that this is a good application of WP:IAR, on the contrary I'd say the MoS guidance should prevail. Our readers are capable of hovering over a piped link or indeed clicking it to discover the difference between volunteer and volunteer, I would contend. --John 15:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Experienced and erudite Wikipedians tend to forget that "We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet." There are a great many casual readers who never contribute, do not have Java extensions installed (so nothing happens when they "hover") and even don't know that blue text can be clicked 'cos it's piped. For these (the great majority) every little clue helps....Gaimhreadhan • 06:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
John when you say the Provisional IRA for example) use the term "volunteer" to describe unpromoted members of the organisation you are incorrect, the IRA use the term Volunteer to refer to all its members wether they hold rank or not, and have done since the mid 70s when they re-organised their structure. Prior to that they had a ranking system similar to regular armies, but they then took view that given the ranks of volunteers killed in action was only giving the British a propaganda boost, therefore all members were refered to just as Volunteers.--padraig3uk 15:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Padraig, thank you, that's very interesting and I'd be interested in knowing a source. However I do not think it is germane to the style issue we are discussing. --John 15:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Padraig's comments really refer to the Provos - not earlier flavours. unsigned by User:Gaimhreadhan • 15:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I did say from the mid 70s, prior to that any Volunteer that held rank was given that rank in any statements given by the IRA.--padraig3uk 15:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It is relevent to this discussion as Volunteer X, is a proper rank or title and should be capitalised when refering to that person, same as would be done for members of any Army, if refering to volunteers in general then it could be used in lowercase.--padraig3uk 15:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
That is precisely my proposal above. --John 15:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Then I fail to see what the problem is.--padraig3uk 15:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent)Here's an example, where we have the very inelegant and MoS-noncompliant usage "...a Provisional Irish Republican Army member/Volunteer". I would propose decapitalising instances like these, per the MoS. It doesn't seem like it should be in any way controversial to me either, but there you go. --John 16:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

John I had ago at tidying up that Stephen Tibble article, have a look and see what you think.--padraig3uk 16:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's certainly less bad. Rather than "Vol., Liam Quinn...", I'd have "Volunteer Liam Quinn..." as I think the abbreviation is unhelpful and that the term should be spelled out the first time it is used. Bravo for having a go at fixing it. --John 16:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I changed it to Volunteer.--padraig3uk 16:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with John's opening paragraph. Capitalised before names (and pipelinked the first time it occurs in an article), not when referring generally to volunteers. E.g., "Volunteer Joe Bloggs left, but the other volunteers remained..." Anything else is just bad grammar. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 18:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capital directions

On Template:Jct someone is changing directions to be capitalized, producing "US 85 North" rather than "US 85 north". Please assist. --NE2 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, then why did you capitalize all of the directions here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/NHS/DC? --Holderca1 15:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Please don't ask the same question in multiple places. I'm replying at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (exit lists). --NE2 15:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Then don't start the same conversation in multiple places. --Holderca1 15:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't. --NE2 16:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, [23]. --Holderca1 16:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't know I had posted that. I must have been drunk. --NE2 16:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proper nouns?

I see there are many very specific rules, but shouldn't there be a general rule stating that initial letters of proper nouns are capitalized? Or is 'proper noun' considered an ambiguous concept? --Rinconsoleao 15:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, I for one would welcome that kind of straightforwardness, even if it was only to have stronger consistency with Wikipedia:Proper names and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). - Cyrus XIII 15:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battles and other important events

I've been slightly involved in a drive to bring Battle of Waterloo up to GA standard, and one of the criticisms made in the view was that all the links to other battles capitalised the word "battle" (ie: "Battle of Quartre Bras"). Also, the battle of Waterloo itself is frequently capitalised. The style guide doesn't seem to cover this, but several style guides outside of WP suggest that they should be capitalised [24] [25] [26]. Of course, a few suggest otherwise [27]. Should we not maybe decide on a policy and formalise it on the page? -Kieran 13:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Working out a bump

We currently have that bit about personal names, that suggests to "follow the lead of outside sources" when it comes to the article title. All other guidelines on Wikipedia, which deal with capitalization issues (i.e. WP:MOS-TM) don't really do that, they just urge us to apply standard English text formatting throughout. Hence no other group of subjects receives that sort of extra consideration. In order to have better consistency throughout the MoS and subsequently our articles and also to ensure equal treatment of each (kind of) subject per WP:NPOV, aforementioned bit should probably be removed.

During a recent mediation, several editors already agreed on the notion, that capitalization is a matter of style, not content, hence no risk here of running afoul of WP:UCN and WP:OR. Thoughts? - Cyrus XIII 19:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

First, full-disclosure. I was involved in the mediation mentioned above, and Cyrus also asked me to comment here due to the lack of other responses. I strongly agree that capitalization is a style issue, and since there is a section of the Manual of Style devoted to capitalization, this seems to be a view shared by many. If someone named Christine on her birth certificate calls herself Kris, Cris, or Christy (and, the NYT or EB follows her lead), we are obliged to do the same. But, the difference between Chris/chris or cris/Cris is not something that changes the content. If there is a difference, then, I wonder how we could include any of these lower-case-preferred names in any spoken-version or TTS version of the encyclopedia without violating whatever rule that would dictate that the lowercasing is relevant. Neier 12:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military terms

So far there has been no reply to my above post. I have now had a chance to look at the Chicago Manual of Style on this, and have put my proposals into the article. I've also posted on the WikiProject Military History talk page to try and get some of that group involved in working these guidelines out. -Kieran 19:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Overall, it looks fine; but I'd avoid using the "Guard" example. In many contexts, the term is used merely as a shortened version of a proper name, and is capitalized (e.g. "The attack headed towards the Old Guard formations along the ridge. The Guard descended from its positions..."). This is similar to other short-form names; for example, "the 18th Infantry Regiment attacked" versus "the 18th Infantry attacked" versus "the infantry attacked". Kirill 20:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I've changed the example. I'm trying to think how this could be phrased into a style guideline, though. What is it about "the Guard" that distinguishes it from "the battalion"? Actually, I'm not so sure now. Even the Chicago MoS is a bit ambiguous on this one: They give the example of the United States Coast Guard, which can be abbreviated to either the Coast Guard or the coast guard. For other units, they're clear, eg: Army Corps of Engineers vs the corps.
I think, in the case of "the Guard", that it's more that the term is an "unofficial but well-known name" for the Imperial Guard, which is why it qualifies as a proper noun: There's certainly no ambiguity when referring to it in the context of Napoleonic warfare, whereas "the battalion" requires a lot more context to be specific. -Kieran 23:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Note that this discussion is primarily continuing here -Kieran 12:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems correct to me. In the Battle of Waterloo article, for example, I have edited it to read "Lobau's VI Corps" or alternatively "Lobau's corps", deleting instances of "Lobau's Corps". The Guard is capitalised, as a recognised formation, but I feel that it is composed of guardsmen rather than Guardsmen. Tirailleur 15:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Institutions and definite articles

The current MoS on institutions seems... well, just plain wrong. Often—especially when accompanied by a definite article—short noun names are merely abbreviations of proper names. I.e. they should (at least under other style guides) retain capitalization. So, for example:

Harvard University is located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The University is one of the preeminent universities in North America. Its mission is to promote excellence in university education.

Doggerel, no doubt, in my offhand example. But the first and second usage (whether or not the preceding word 'Harvard' occurs) refer to a specific institution (i.e. a proper noun). The plural in the third usage is clearly a general noun, as is the final adjectival usage. LotLE×talk 08:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The argument being, I suppose, that this is consistent with the proper names of people. However, that runs against shortform names for the heads of those institutions, for example: the "President of Harvard University" and "43rd President of the United States" but "the current president". I think the suggested change would lead to widespread confusion. Consistency is best: capitalise for the proper name in full, lowercase for component shortforms. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
That's really not a counter-example. A noun phrase like "the current president" is a descriptor not an indexical. It really is just like "John Smith ... To Smith, ...". Or since 'Smith' is a family name, the same would apply for names that are descriptive: "Erik the Red founded the first Nordic settlement in Greenland. The appellation "the Red"..." In other words, the otherwise common noun "red" gets capitalized as when it serves as a name.
The most obvious evidence that WP is doing it wrong is that everyone else does it right. From their home pages:
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville was founded in 1794... The University now has nearly 26000 ...
The University of Virginia in Charlottesville, VA was founded in 1819...The cornerstone of the University's first building was laid..."
And so on. Every newspaper does it the right way, as well as the homepages of every university. LotLE×talk 18:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Several points:
  • Yes, initial caps are frequently used internally by university institutions ("the Colleges are", "the Faculty is", "the Library will open" etc). Whether this should be adopted by Wikipedia is another matter. The Chicago Manual of Style says "sometimes [the] short forms [of institutions and their departments] are capitalized. Such generic terms as school and company are usually lowercased when used alone but are sometimes capitalized to avoid ambiguity or for promotional purposes." The key word here is sometimes. I suggest the internal university usage is promotional, for aggrandisement purposes.
  • Your statement that "every newspaper does it the right way" isn't quite right. The New York Times and The Washington Post don't. Neither, on the other side of the pond, do The Times nor The Guardian.
  • My personal view is that university usage is endearing but not universally accepted. I oppose your proposal on the practical grounds that, if adopted, it would become the camel's nose. It could potentially lead to endless arguments about capitalisation in hundreds of thousands of articles about schools, military units of all types, local government institutions and so forth. The Wikipedian convention at the moment is easy to understand and consistent with the mainstream press. That's how it should stay.
--ROGER DAVIES TALK 12:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Telecom acronym help needed please

Hi. I have read a few of the threads about capitalization and I think I know the answer to this because of it. However, before I go broadcasting to our entire department, a little confirmation never hurts.

I document extremely complex telecom engineering projects and everything that can have an acronym is given one. However, I am trying to create examples for the junior members of why they shouldn't Capitalize Absolutely Every Important Word and I have the following sentence:

In the case of MIP, it will be the home address assigned by the Home Agent (HA). In the case of Simple IP fallback, it will be the Tunnel Inner Address assigned by the PDIF.

MIP is a protocol (Mobile Internet Protocol) so that is no problem. Home Agent is a piece of software and it has been capitalized by this company by everyone since forever, so right or wrong I am not going to change it. I am not sure about "fallback." Simple IP is Simple Internet Protocol, so as the name of a protocol this capitalization is ok. It cannot be "SIP" because SIP is another totally different and long-established protocol. But how can I decide if fallback should be capitalized or not?

Then I have Tunnel Inner Address. This is abbreviated as TIA and again this is such common usage that it would be useless to try and change it. However the (or a) tunnel inner address is expressed by an IP address and I would maintain that because the phrase takes "a" or "the" then tunnel inner address should not be capitalized.

Thoughts and comments please? Soccerman58 19:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Soccerman58

[edit] Titles (books)

Will no one develope this section of the Project page? --Ludvikus 00:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe this page's Title section is dedicated to titles held by people, rather than the names/titles of published works. On the matter of capitalization WikiProject Books seems to have no guideline of its own, but in its Naming section, it links to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books). That page's Capitalization section, while less explicit, appears to be fairly consistent with the capitalization guidelines of Wikiproject Music, which in turn, appear to be derived from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). Quite a jungle. - Cyrus XIII 00:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
See the first few paragraphs at WP:CAPS (not MOSCAPS). Neier 00:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
My question involves the conventions as to the words in the middle of book Titles. I did not find it there, where you sent me. Can you be more specific? We had the following problem:
    On the Jews and their lies vs. On the Jews and Their Lies
Which is the proper Wikipedia style? --Ludvikus 01:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
You mean On the Jews and Their Lies? I'd say the current article title already has proper formatting. That's how it would be done with films, as well as musical albums and songs, so it's probably save to assume that the same goes for books, even if book-related guidelines are not that clear about capitalization. - Cyrus XIII 02:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
(copied from my response on my talk page) Here's the section you should read, from WP:CAPS:
In general, each word in titles of books, films, and other works take an initial capital, except for articles ("a", "an", "the"), the word "to", and prepositions and conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., "on", "from", "and", "with"), unless they begin the title. Examples: A New Kind of Science, Ghost in the Shell, To Be or Not to Be.
So, since neither their nor lies is a preposition or a conjunction; so, the second option you listed is correct. Neier 02:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. But my point is that the rules on this Project page do not give a Wikipedian any guidance on this. Will someone please write this rule in the Project page? --Ludvikus 03:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I came here for a similar reason, curious about guidelines on capitalizing magazine/newspaper article titles. I'll propose a short new section at the bottom of this talk page. -Agyle 22:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disagreement between two editors over a matter of accessibility

I've just created a subpage of my user space at User:OwenBlacker/Usability. User:Everyking and I have a disagreement over matters of accessibility and usability — notably including citing references in all-caps when the reference itself is titled in all-caps — that I've just listed on WP:RFC/STYLE; please come and add your views. — OwenBlacker 20:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New section proposal: "Titles of books and other works"

There are no guidelines on titles of books/articles here. Some info is covered in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), and maybe we should just mention that in the "Titles" section. An alternative is to rename Titles section to Titles of people, and add this new section beneath it, duplicating some info from WP:Naming Conventions:

Titles of books and other works

For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)
In general, each word in titles of books, films, and other works take an initial capital, except for articles ("a", "an", "the"), the word "to", and prepositions and conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., "on", "from", "and", "with"), unless they begin the title. Examples: A New Kind of Science, Ghost in the Shell, To Be or Not to Be. (note: that's lifted directly from WP:Naming Conventions) Titles of periodical articles are generally capitalized as an ordinary sentence. Example: "Economy reels: stock market plummets." (note: I (Agyle) just made that up)

A third approach would be to add such a paragraph to the existing Titles section, but these are two distinct meanings of the world title. -Agyle 23:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The proposal should reflect one change; Wikipedia:Cite_sources/example_style#Journal_articles says that to also capitalize the first word after a colon or dash. I assume that style extends to other article titles. -Agyle 23:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I had a similar, though more wide-reaching idea: There have been a quite a few questions on talk pages lately, along the lines of "how to format this?" or "does WP:MOS-TM apply to that?" (a guideline originally created for trademarks, but nowadays its sections which deal with stylized text formatting are applied in almost everything, with multiple other guidelines referring to it), so a focused and streamlined set of rules that would apply to all sorts of proper names (titles of published works, such as books being among them) might be beneficial in the long run. - Cyrus XIII 15:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article's own title

An article's own title should be at the beginning of each article (as I am sure you are all well aware, but demonstrated here for effect). My question is whether that title should have a capital first letter when it is quoted at the beginning of the article (though of course not at the beginning of the sentence).

In other words, should the example above read "An article's own title..." or "An Article's own title..." It was my impression that the former was preferred, but I can't find a policy that states it explicitly in the capitalisation style guide.

The guide to the layout of an article's first paragraph gives several examples, but most of them have the article title either as the beginning of a sentence or as a proper noun!

The example for egg (food) seems to show that a capital initial is not required in this situation, but it does not explicitly state the policy on this. Could someone please clarify and/or update the policies to make it clear. Many thanks.  :-) Leevclarke 22:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geographical features

Just realised that the discussion that I started on the main MoS page regarding capitalisation of geographical features and built structures really ought to be mentioned here as well. Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Capitalisation of geographical features Mayalld 09:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification on titles

The example of generic use is

  • "Louis XVI was the French king"

while the example of the use of a title is

  • "Louis XVI was King of France"

But then I assume that the following is correct.

  • "Louis XVI was the king of France"

This is just the first example without the use of an adjective. Is this correct? --RelHistBuff 08:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The three examples look good to me, although the third one could be a title in some contexts ("the King of France", like the Manager of Accounts). But I've always needed firm direction when it comes to capitals. Tony (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, my question has been answered, sort of... But I would recommend to the maintainers of this guideline bring more clarity concerning capitalisation when titles are used. The current examples are not good enough. --RelHistBuff 21:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acronyms

"When showing the source of an acronym, initialism, or syllabic abbreviation, emphasizing the letters that make up the acronym is undesirable:"

What's the reasoning behind this? — Omegatron 00:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure - I don't see a reason for discouraging one instance of emphasizing specific letters once. Such as it is desirable to define an acronym in the beginning of a text or upon its first usage, it seems important to clearly define an initialism or acronym through bold letters if nothing else... Nicholas SL Smithchatter 02:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Biblical" or "biblical"?

There is currently discussion on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible page about whether the word "Biblical" should begin with an upper case B or not. There appear to be several extant major external style guides which for whatever reason say either capitalized or uncapitalized is acceptable, and some other major style guides which say lower case should be used, and at least two governmental style guides, for the US and Canada, which say the first letter should always be uppercase. There are also several other, admittedly generally less well referenced, which indicate that the uppercase B should be used. What should the policy be here, always lower, always upper, or mixed, depending on whether it is a direct reference to the book the Bigle or just referring to that era, location, or whatever? Also, should the same rules be applied to other adjectives about scriptures, such as the Vedas, the Koran, the Talmud, the Zend Avesta, and so on? John Carter 22:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, John Carter. I have just commented there. And I have edited like this, here:

The names of major revered works of scripture like the Bible, the Qur'an, the Talmud, and the Vedas should be capitalized (but not italicized). The adjective biblical should not be capitalized. Koranic is normally capitalised, but usage varies for talmudic, vedic, etc. Be consistent in an article.

I surveyed major style guides and dictionaries to arrive at this formulation. As usual, people may want some change; but it does reflect standard practice, I think.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 01:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistent terminology

  • I wonder whether the page could use "upper case" consistently, rather than mixing it with "capitals".
  • "Most words with prefixes such as Anglo-, Franco-, etc., are capitalized." Many readers will understand "capitalized" as referring to "all caps".

Can someone edit the page for consistency and comprehensibility WRT to these items? Tony (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guidance on Color

I have a question on whether color should be capatalized. "A white person" or "A White person". I can't find any consistent guidance. The Chicago Manual of Style says

8.43Color Designations based loosely on color are usually lowercased, though capitalization may be appropriate if the writer strongly prefers it.

.[28] The APA says to always capatalize color when referring to social groups. [29] Another style guide from Carnegie Mellon says never capatlize when refering to race. [30] CJ 13:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 'God' vs. 'god'

What's the policy on capitalisation of common nouns that denote deities? Another editor apparently prescribes using a capital letter whenever the extension can be implicitly restricted to monotheistic deities (as in "I believe in a god"), but I see no support for this position in the MoS and it flouts basic English orthographic standards. I'd argue that they should remain lower-case for the same reason equivalent pronouns do. Ilkali (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

context: [31], Talk:Misotheism This isn't about "common nouns that denote deities", it is about the word God/god in particular. Ilkali seems to labour under the misapprehension that any orthographical convention of the English langauge that isn't specifically mentioned in MoS somehow does not take effect on Wikipedia. I ask him to consult any major dictionary of the English language, which will either treat god and God as two separate lemmata (so CALD, Encarta), or specifically note the application of capitalised God under the god lemma (so OED, COED, MW). This isn't a "style" issue, it's an orthographical one. By all appearances, we are looking at a case of WP:POINT (the point made being that God "shouldn't" be so spelled, according to Ilkali's opinion). I can't believe I wasted 15 minutes addressing a non-issue like this. --dab (𒁳) 17:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This is why I don't think you understand my position. I am not disputing that there are two separate lexemes, but that's irrelevant to the issue. We already agree that the proper noun 'God' should be proper-cased - note that I didn't change any proper nouns in the article. We disagree on the conventions surrounding a specific one of the lexemes - the common noun that denotes all deities. You argue that it should be proper-cased in certain circumstances, and neither the OED nor MW agree with you.
"I believe in God" is correct. 'God' here is a proper noun, and should be capitalised per English orthographic standards. This is the lexeme represented by Encarta's 'God' entry.
"I believe in a god" is correct. 'God' here is a common noun, and should be left lower-case per English orthographic standards. This is the lexeme represented by Encarta's 'god' entry.
Ilkali (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand your point. Again, by changing "belief in a God" to "belief in a god", you are not doing a stylistic edit, you are changing the meaning of the phrase. "belief in a god" expresses a polytheist position. "belief in a God" expresses a monotheist position, the indefinite article expressing the plurality of possible conceptions of God in monotheism. You are mis-representing my position. I certainly agree that "the common noun that denotes all deities" (including polytheistic ones) is god, not God. "Proper cased" God is restricted to monotheist conceptions. We can discuss which case applies in any given context, but we'll only be able to have this discussion once you stop alleging that it is a matter of stylistics, not content. [comment continued below]
So are you arguing for three separate lexemes? Something like this?
  1. A proper noun referencing a single monotheistic god
  2. A common noun denoting all gods defined in monotheistic religions
  3. A common noun denoting all gods defined in polytheistic religions
Where the first two are capitalised (the latter being a special case in English orthography) and the third is not? Or are you pointing out that proper nouns can function as common nouns, as in 'There are two Davids in our family'? Ilkali (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
He's not doing that at all. What is being referenced here is the difference between a single entity named God (proper noun) versus a name for a class of entity also commonly refered to as "deity." You are cluttering a very clear distinction for no apparent reason. I'm with dab, and I cannot see your point at all. Again, your failure to get us to see the point of what you're saying is not a failure in us, as you have implied, but a failure in your effort to communicate. If you cannot communicate with clarity what point you are really seeking to make, perhaps you are mistaken in thinking you have one. In the misotheism article you have persistently re-injected your edits changing "God" to "a god" over and over again, despite your failure to demonstrate the reasoning behind these changes. Please, you are now just being petty, and it's clear you don't care whether your point of view has merit, you just plan to keep re-injecting it regardless. Craig zimmerman (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
One profoundly irritating fact about being a student of linguistics is that, no matter how much you might learn, every person on the street will assume himself equally qualified to talk about language. You're even more brazen than most - if I use linguistic terminology, you accuse me of obscuring the issue or being uncommunicative because you don't understand the words I'm using. I'm sorry, but I'm not obligated to teach you syntax just so you can talk productively about this topic. But I'll explain how you're wrong.
"What is being referenced here is the difference between a single entity named God (proper noun) versus a name for a class of entity also commonly refered to as "deity."" In the noun phrase "a monotheistic, omnipotent God", the final word is functioning as a common noun. The determiner is pretty damn big clue. The question is over what lexeme is being used and what it means, and I don't think you're equipped to contribute to that discussion. Ilkali (talk) 08:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
since you are obviously being tongue-in-cheek now, I will not reply to this. All I am doing is referring to common English language orthographical practice. I don't have to go into metaphysical or ontological discussions on the nature or countability of God for that. dab (𒁳) 15:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
"since you are obviously being tongue-in-cheek now". Ugh. Just when I thought we might make some progress. At no point did I delve into metaphysics, and at no point did I ask anything about the nature of God. All I did was demonstrate a process in which proper nouns can be used as common nouns - I didn't assert anything about how accurate it would be if God were the subject. How about this, instead: "After being fired, a despondent David walked home in the rain". Common literary device, yes? Proper noun functioning as common noun? In "I believe in a God", is this what you think is happening? Or do you think there are three separate lexemes, as described in my earlier post - the one you wouldn't deign to respond to? Ilkali (talk) 08:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
[continuation of comment torn apart by Ilkali] I also draw your attention to google scholar which establishes that the large majority of occurrences of the phrase have God, not god. That is, "belief in a god" is the marked case, implying a conscious statement that the intended god is not the Singular God of monotheism. I do not believe that this question can be decided via MoS. Instead, it needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis, by careful consideration of the intended semantics. I am very careful in choosing god vs. God in my prose, and I object to have my spelling switched around summarily and without reference to the context. dab (𒁳) 12:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, dab. It would seem our friend here is of the opinion that he can tell us what it is we are really thinking, and how we should think it. :-) Craig zimmerman (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I think We Get It by now: Ilkali is An Atheist and wants to make The Point that special orthographical conventions for God are to be rejected as theist bias. Too bad not even atheists generally agree with this. The distinction of monotheism and polytheism encapsulated in God vs. god is important regardless of whether you discuss them from a monotheist, a polytheist or an atheist perspective. dab (𒁳) 15:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
In an ideal world, an admin would stick to discussing the disagreement with the person he disagrees with, and not stage these ridiculous "HEY WE'RE RIGHT LOL" conversations. Ilkali (talk) 08:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
In an ideal world, prospective editors of Wikipedia pages would be required to demonstrate their points clearly to others, and not snap "I already explained that" when others fail to understand what's being said. And so it goes. Dab's point is that the user in question is on some kind of crusade against capitalization of the word "God" based on his personal beliefs. That would be fine, if he provided logical support for his contention that the word needs to be lowercased. But he has not. When asked to explain what his point is, he yammers that "he already has." He extends this to include a crusade to decapitalize pronouns refering to God. While this part of his evangelistic crusade I can heartily agree with, I can't abide by the main thrust of his crusade, because quite simply, the word "God" is being used as a proper name for a particular entity, and that warrants capitalization. We don't see him demanding that "harry potter" be spelled in lowercase because there is no real person named "Harry Potter" (as described in Rowling's books, anyway). Likewise, we don't see this person changing discussion of Jesus in which he is refered to as "the son of God" to read "the son of a god." He does not actually have a point here, just an agenda. Let's move on. Craig zimmerman (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe that, unlike Craig zimmerman, I understand some of Ilkali's point even if I may not necessarily agree with every edit of his (I haven't looked). I think that there is agreement that the word god should only be capitalized when it is a proper noun. (If there is not, please let the discussion know.) The question then boils down to whether reference to a monotheistic god is always a reference to a proper noun, i.e. the same specific entity. If one believes as George W. Bush does (link) (i.e. a pluralist), that is that all monotheistic worshipers worship the same god, then this reference to a single entity is a tenable position, if one believes that Allah of Islam is not the same as God of the Trinity, vide licit some Christians (link), then the mere presence of the word god in a monotheistic context would not necessarily be to a specific entity. This is particularly true when the discussion of a monotheistic god is in the theological/philosophical abstract, and not related to a specific religious belief of a specific relgion. Thus the statement "Monotheists believe in a single god.", is not a reference to God of the Trinity unless one is a pluralist. Since the Wikipedia desires, to the extent possible, to not make presuppositions about beliefs and to present things as objectively as possible, it would seem that unless the context explicitly calls for a single entity as in Allah or God of the Trinity then lower case should be used. For example: "Christians worship a single god." but "Some Episcopalians describe the Trinity as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit." Disclosure: I am a monotheist and a pluralist. --Bejnar (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The proper noun 'God' is pretty strange, in that it sometimes behaves as a deictic (taking its reference from context, from the speech participants' beliefs or from the dominant beliefs of the culture) and sometimes as a kind of vague direct reference (equivalent to 'whatever single god may exist'). I don't think proper nouns always need to make reference to specific gods, and indeed this seems to be Wikipedia policy - the page Existence of God addresses the gods of various monotheistic faiths.
The one place where we can legitimately (in my eyes) use proper-cased God as a common noun is where some kind of syntactic/semantic conversion is taking place, as I described to Dbachmann above. So, for example, we could have something like "A drunken David is more dangerous than a sober David". But this seems to require modifiers in any practical uses. I don't accept 'I believe in a God' (how would this be different in meaning to 'I believe in God'?), but find "I believe in a jealous God" acceptable in principle. The problem is that since so many people would capitalise the word regardless of whether they were using the common or proper noun meaning, the sentence becomes ambiguous. An important observation is that the above sentence entails "I believe in a jealous god". If the former is true, the latter necessarily is. So changing between the two, in that direction, will never introduce inaccuracy. In the vast majority of instances, either the noun can be decapitalised or the syntax reconfigured to use the proper noun normally, without any substantial change in meaning. Ilkali (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
A few points to note here:
  1. What "many people would [do]" (according to the above, "capitalizing the word regardless of whether they were using the common or proper noun meaning") has no bearing on the proper usage of a proper name.
  2. Let's look at this person's erroneous example here: "A drunken David is more dangerous than a sober David." Note that the deck is stacked here through the injection of another proper name. Does this sentence refer to a particular person he knows named David, saying that his behavior is more dangerous drunk than sober? Or is it a statement being made about people named David in general? He says "we could have" examples like this, but he offers no example of what a lowercase "david" might refer to, to give any balance to his assertions. "David" is a proper name. There is no lowercase "david" to play this assertion against. By his example, David is always capitalized, and thus by analogy "God" would also always have to be capitalized. Clearly this was not this person's intent, but this demonstrates the transparency of his examples.
  3. "I believe in a jealous God" makes sense only in a similar fashion to the analogous "I believe a drunken David is more dangerous." When you use the capitalized form, you are refering to a named entity. Thus, one might say "God is a jealous god."
The point is that all this handwaving by our friend here has not demonstrated anything invalid about using the name "God" to refer to the entity denoted as the monotheistic god. That he is confused by the issues has no more bearing on the merits of capitalizing the word "God" then his claim that "many people would capitalise the word regardless of whether they were using the common or proper noun meaning." (Mind you, I certainly respect his atheistic perspective that no such entity exists, but his evangelistic efforts to impose that on the rest of the world makes no sense at all. Besides, even names of purely fictional characters are properly capitalized, which makes his complaint rather odd.) Craig zimmerman (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
"What "many people would [do]" (according to the above, "capitalizing the word regardless of whether they were using the common or proper noun meaning") has no bearing on the proper usage of a proper name". In this case, I agree.
"the deck is stacked here through the injection of another proper name". The sole point of the example was to demonstrate proper->common noun conversion. It was not asserted to be parallel to any other example in any other way.
"I believe in a jealous God" makes sense only in a similar fashion to the analogous "I believe a drunken David is more dangerous.". Yes. That's the point I was making.
"all this handwaving by our friend here has not demonstrated anything invalid about using the name "God" to refer to the entity denoted as the monotheistic god". There is nothing wrong with using proper-cased proper nouns to reference entities. The only places where I changed the proper noun 'God' to a common noun was where it made the sentence more accurate. For example, if a page said "Atheism is the lack of belief in God", I would change 'God' to 'gods', because atheism is more accurately defined relative to all gods.
As I requested on the talk page of the article in question: Present examples of inappropriate edits and explain why you think they are so. Ilkali (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Bejnar: I think a closer view of the edits you admit you have missed will make things clearer.
    • I think that there is agreement that the word god should only be capitalized when it is a proper noun. (If there is not, please let the discussion know.) There is full agreement here. This user has actually made modifications in cases where the word "God" was indeed being used as a proper name. It is apparently a matter of distaste with the entity he feels is non-existent having its name capitalized. Beyond that, I can see no substantive point being made, since clearly he violates this very rule you agree there is agreement on.
    • The question then boils down to whether reference to a monotheistic god is always a reference to a proper noun, i.e. the same specific entity. In the cases we are talking about, the references were to the name of a single specific entity. Logic dictates that within a monotheistic perspective only one entity refered to as God exists, no matter what language his name might be spoken in. From the monotheistic perspective, it makes no sense to assert that different religions are refering to different existing entities—that would mean, naturally, we were not talking in monotheistic terms, we would be in the throes of polytheism. We would have, for example, Allah and Jehovah. Thus references to "God" are references to the single entity who is the monotheistic deity. You mention that as a pluralistic monotheist, you believe this to be so. I put it to you that regardless of your choice of a pluralistic viewpoint, this would have to be so. As a Maltheist, I not only believe this is so, I believe that the reason different religions all of whom worship the same deity are at odds with each other is because this is so—because we have a single monomaniacal deity named God who enjoys driving human beings apart. That's ancillary to the discussion, but my point is that a proper name is proper here, and that the edited references were a proper use of a proper name.
    • Since Wikipedia desires, to the extent possible, to not make presuppositions about beliefs and to present things as objectively as possible, it would seem that unless the context explicitly calls for a single entity as in Allah or God of the Trinity then lower case should be used. Then you would agree that when the context does explicitly call for the name of a single entity (and in monotheism by definition there can be only a single entity) that the proper name using upper case should be used, correct?
    • I hope this sheds some light on why I continue to believe this user really does not have a point, at least not with respect to the edits he has chosen to make, which have been arbitrary and apparently part of some broader crusade. Craig zimmerman (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
"This user has actually made modifications in cases where the word "God" was indeed being used as a proper name". Only in the circumstances outlined above - where the goal was to change the meaning of the sentence, not the grammar or formatting. In all other cases, I made changes to uses of the common noun. Ilkali (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
In other words, the sentences originally meant some particular thing, as intended by the authors of those sentences. You decided unilaterally that you knew better than the authors of those sentences what they really meant to say. You knew better than those other people what they were actually thinking! LOL! Just goes to show that arrogant presumptive censorship comes in many flavors, liberal and conservative, religious and areligious. (By the way, please don't retort, as you have here and elsewhere, by making more snide comments about how the other person just doesn't get your brilliant repartee. Instead, do what you proclaim loudly and proudly that you aren't obliged to do: explain what you really mean, as godawfully pedantic and droll as such effort might seem to you.) Craig zimmerman (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
"In other words, the sentences originally meant some particular thing, as intended by the authors of those sentences. You decided unilaterally that you knew better than the authors of those sentences what they really meant to say." No. In the cases where I changed the meaning of a sentence, I decided that what the authors had written was inaccurate or insufficient. I changed their contribution so the article would better describe the subject material. That's kind of the whole point of Wikipedia. Ilkali (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Craig zimmerman: I ask that you try to be civil and assume good faith when commenting here. Instead of spending most of your time talking about what you perceive to be my biases and my "crusade", talk about the matter being discussed here: Wikipedia's orthographical conventions. Once we've reached consensus on a policy for capitalisation of 'god', we can examine my edits in light of it.
My position is that:

  1. The proper noun 'God', which makes reference to an entity, should be proper-cased, as is normal for proper nouns.
  2. The common noun 'god', which denotes deities, should have lower-case, as is normal for common nouns.

You may believe that my edits are in conflict with this position, and I'll be happy to address specific points of disagreement, but do you agree with the position itself? Ilkali (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In reply to Bejnar

I think that there is agreement that the word god should only be capitalized when it is a proper noun.

not necessarily. It's the other way round: the monotheistic God is always spelled with capital G. Whether you want to deduce from this that "reference to a monotheistic god is always a reference to a proper noun" is a secondary question and open to debate, but without consequence for orthography. I'll go with the OED god lemma:
"II. In the specific Christian and monotheistic sense. The One object of supreme adoration; the Creator and Ruler of the Universe. (Now always with initial capital.)" (emphasis mine)
and only 'II. 5. "As a proper name", besides
"6. As an appellative. a. A Being such as is understood by the proper name God; a sole Divine Creator and Ruler of the Universe; that which God is represented to be according to some particular conception (as the God of philosophy, of pantheism, of Judaism), or is manifested to be in some special department of His action (as the God of nature, of revelation, of providence); God as contemplated in some special attribute or relation (as the God of love, of mercy, of vengeance, etc., the God who made us, etc., my or our God, etc.)."
I was arguing nothing less and nothing more than what is competently and unambiguously recorded in the OED lemma I just quoted. Ilkali's edits concern precisely occurrences of meanings of OED's II.6.a, which according to OED are "now" to be spelled "always with initial capital" (always as opposed to "mostly", "widely", "sometimes" or "optionally"). I would ask Ilkali to not waste other people's time forcing them to explain to him questions of the English lexicon that he might just as well have looked up in a dictionary on his own time.
incidentially, since I have now looked up OED anyway, regarding the "now": the last incidence recorded by the OED where "god II." was not spelled with capital initial was in Wyclif's Bible, written in the 1380s. So, if you want to initiate a Middle English Wikipedia project (or join ang:), feel free to spell god any way you like there, but en-wiki is normally understood to follow Modern English orthography. dab (𒁳) 14:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The two definitions you quoted describe proper nouns. There is no dispute over whether, for example, "I believe in God" is appropriately formatted. It is. It uses the proper noun 'God' to make direct reference to a god. The question is over uses as in "I believe in a God". The determiner uncontroversially shows that the following noun is at least functioning as a common noun. As I see it, you have three options:
  1. Argue convincingly that some kind of proper->common noun conversion is taking place. You'll have to show that the marked syntactic conversion from 'I believe in God' to 'I believe in a God' has some useful semantic effect that emerges from some rule(s) of English syntax and semantics, whether general or specific.
  2. Show that there is a special common noun denoting only gods defined in monotheistic religions, and show that its prescribed form is 'God'. This might be achieved with a dictionary, but the OED won't help you.
  3. Agree that the word 'God' in the above sentence is the common noun synonymous with 'deity', and argue that there are special orthographic rules governing the capitalisation thereof.
Otherwise the only reasonable interpretation is that this is a normal common noun functioning as a normal common noun, and should, per general English orthographic conventions, be left in lower-case. Ilkali (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't this become more than ridiculous? Does this user believe he has the right to delete other people's comments not just because he doesn't like their content but because he doesn't like their format? This is absurd. I interjected my comments in the same manner that he interjected comments in other people's texts, but when done to his words he takes offense and deletes the text? Enough is enough! Craig zimmerman (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My splitting of dbachmann's comment is explained in the Wikiquette alert I filed about you ([32]). Ilkali (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know. :-) Craig zimmerman (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specific examples

To narrow down the points of disagreement, it may be helpful to examine specific examples. The following are edits to the Misotheism article that were reverted by dbachmann and Craig_zimmerman. I'm going to explain why each was made. Feel free to add your own responses under each one (and not within mine, please), explaining why you disagree. And, of course, feel free to add your own examples. Ilkali (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

this is entirely a content dispute related to these specific passages now and has nothing to do with general MoS on capitalisation. Misotheism is discussed as a position towards monotheism in particular in these passages, and hence God is capitalised. Ilkali, you are now, by your revert-warring, indulging in WP:POINT. Review WP:DISRUPT for possible sanctions that may be taken against such behaviour. dab (𒁳) 14:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
"this is entirely a content dispute related to these specific passages now and has nothing to do with general MoS on capitalisation". Some of these points are indeed content-related, but this seems a lot more convenient for those involved than spreading discussion of the same five examples across two pages. Additionally, things like entailment relations between minimal pairs are pertinent to discussion on the policy.
"Misotheism is discussed as a position towards monotheism in particular in these passages, and hence God is capitalised". I've asked you more than once to explain exactly how you think these terms work, and each time you have neglected to respond. The reality is that you've never really participated at all. You haven't responded to the things I've said, you've just asserted your own viewpoint. Your belief that you are right does not make you so. You do not have to be convinced that you are wrong in order for you to be wrong. Ilkali 16:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"A related concept is dystheism [...], the belief that God is not wholly good" ->
"A related concept is dystheism [...], the belief that a god is not wholly good"

Like atheism, dystheism isn't defined relatively to any particular god. I can hold a dystheistic stance about any I choose. Thus the reduction in specificity yields an increase in accuracy. Ilkali (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Thus dystheism is only meaningful in reference to a monotheistic, omnipotent God" ->
"Thus dystheism is normally used in reference to a monotheistic, omnipotent god"

Bad wording on my part. I should've changed it to something like "Thus the term is normally used [...]". Still,
  1. The indefinite article establishes that 'God' is at least functioning as a common noun. The modifiers (monotheistic, omnipotent) describe first a feature inherent to God and then a feature standardly ascribed to him, so if the noun is a direct reference then there's little reason for them to be there - they're redundant. They're only useful if they restrict the denotation of the common noun 'god', which strongly suggests that that's exactly what they're doing.
  2. The reason given for dystheism's meaningless in the context of polytheistic faiths is that "polytheistic deities since prehistoric times have been assumed to be neither good nor evil (or to have both qualities)". How is this sound reasoning? Even if it were the case that polytheistic deities were intrinsically incapable of evil, it would still be entirely possible to have, or to talk about a dystheistic view of them. The term would still be meaningful and potentially useful.
    Hence the change to "is normally used".
Ilkali (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"it is generally manifested more as an opposition to belief in a God (to theism per se) than as opposition to God himself" ->
"it is generally manifested more as an opposition to belief in a god (to theism per se) than as opposition to gods themselves"

Again, the indefinite article shows that the first 'God' is functioning as a common noun. But this time it doesn't even have any modifiers. There's no conversion taking place here. Why should it be capitalised? Theism isn't belief in God, it's belief in ≥1 gods.
Assuming the above is correct, why should the latter half of the sentence contrast 'opposition to belief in a god' with 'opposition to God'? It makes no sense to change specificities halfway through the comparison. And why specifically say that antitheism is not opposition to one specific god, when we could instead make the more informative and equally true statement that it is not opposition to any gods? Ilkali (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"these groups were dualists that held to the notion that the god of this world, the demiurge, was evil, but that there was a transcendent world greater than this one ruled by a true good God" ->
"these groups were dualists that held to the notion that the god of this world, the demiurge, was evil, but that there was a transcendent world greater than this one ruled by a true good god"

Here the original source uses common-noun 'god' in the first half, and the capitalised noun 'God' functioning as a common noun in the second. What's the point of the modifier 'true' here? There's no need to talk about a true God if there's no mention anywhere of a false God. The modifier only makes a useful semantic contribution if we take the final noun to be common, such that true gods can be contrasted with false gods. Ilkali (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"God as depicted in the New Testament is considered to be a "kinder, gentler" God than..." ->
"God as depicted in the New Testament is considered to be a "kinder, gentler" god than..."

I have no fundamental problem with the orthography here, because proper->common conversion makes the sentence make perfect sense. But this kind of conversion is uncommon within English. People tend to expect that things functioning as common nouns will actually be common nouns. My edit does not introduce inaccuracy or ambiguity, but it simplifies the interpretation process. On what grounds should it be reverted? Ilkali (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Outside opinion: I suggest using the Associated Press manual of style for reference. When referring to "a god" or "the god" or "my god", do not capitalize, but as a proper name "I love God" please capitalize. Here is the rule of thumb that I humbly suggest: when referring to God as a concept of a deity, do not capitalize. When referring to the deity directly, or from the perspective of a religion that uses such personal convention, then capitalize. For example, "Most Americans believe in god" would be correct when referring to the fact that most Americans are not atheists. However, "Most Americans believe in God" would be correct in referring to the specific monotheistic deity. How specific of a deity you are referring to is a matter of clarification that should be listed. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there is mostly consensus now for the position that common nouns should not capitalise (four editors explicitly in agreement, with one not having made his position clear enough to tell). I propose that the appropriate sections in the MoS be changed such that they define policy in terms of proper and common nouns. The current wording delves into semantics a little too much, and is consequently somewhat equivocal. Ilkali (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that God is an exception to the rule? Certainly it is commonly treated as such. Is God and god completely two different words? My teachers always taught me so. It would be accurate to say Atheist believe in neither a God, or Gods. Also, scholars have capitalized God when talking about dualist beliefs. What of Neo-pagan beliefs that believe in a God and a Goddess. In this case God is not a god. What is certain is that God is a name. Is it capitalized like American, Dad, or David, or by its own rules? Rds865 (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, look up the difference between common and proper nouns. Ilkali (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Game animal names

Hello, in the article on red fox, the term is lowercase unless it is at the beginning of a sentence, then the 'R' is capital. In an article on Common Pheasant, another game animal, the words Common Pheasant are always capitalized (ugh!). This does not make any sense. The bird articles are written with conventions used by those that study birds, but their arbitrary and extraordinary conventions should not apply to a general topic encyclopedia. Am I alone on this?TableManners (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The established convention on Wikipedia is that English names of species always have lower-case initials, except, as you say, at the start of a sentence, or when a word within it is a proper name (Siberian tiger, Przewalski's horse). Except for birds, which all get initial caps regardless, such as your Common Pheasant. Can't say I agree with it particularly (likewise, ugh!), but this the consensus – see Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds#Bird names and article titles. The logic given there is not really any different for birds than for other species, but there you are. Perhaps the only real difference is that English bird species names are internationally agreed, whereas for most (but not all) other species it's just down to usage. --Richard New Forest (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to formalise the relationship between MOS and its sub-pages

Dear fellow colleagues: the idea is to centralise debate and consensus-gathering when there are inconsistencies between the pages.

The most straightforward way is to have MOS-central prevail, and to involve expertise from sub-pages on the talk page there, rather than the fragmentary discourse—more usually the absence of discourse and the continuing inconsistency—that characterises WP's style guideline resources now. If consensus has it that MOS-central should bend to the wording of a sub-page, so be it. But until that occurs in each case that might occasionally arise, there needs to be certainty for WPians, especially in the Featured Article process, where nominators and reviewers are sometimes confused by a left- and right-hand that say different things.

Of course, no one owns MOS-central, and we're all just as important to its running as other editors. I ask for your support and feedback HERE. Tony (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization of foreign titles

In cases where the capitalization of foreign language titles doesn't match Wikipedia's guidelines for capitalization, should we put it in its original form, or normalize the title? Example: El tren de los momentos. I am led to believe that in its native language, only the initial word is capitalized. Should the native capitalization be retained? -Freekee (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The artist's official website renders the record's title either in all-caps or in common title case ("El Tren de los Momentos"), hence we are certainly at the liberty of using the latter. Also, while my experience on this may by no means be exhaustive, I am under the impression, that many high-profile English publications chose to apply title case to foreign language media (see an example in the NY Times). - Cyrus XIII (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalise the first letter with bullet points?

When using examples in the form of bullet points (or, more specifically, when using bullet points whose content is more or less embedded within a sentence)

  • like
  • so

should we capitalise the first letter of each bullet point

  • Like so?

It Is Me Here (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Different style guides disagree. The Chicago Manual of Style uses what in my personal experience is the most common format, i.e. lower case when bulleting a list of words or sentence fragments, and initial capital letter when bulleting complete sentences. However there're some style guides, for example the Guardian newspaper's, which recommend an initial capital letter at all times. I'd say both of the above are therefore correct. --DeLarge (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, but does that also mean that we should not change one to the other? It Is Me Here (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to say no unless you've found a bulleted list which doesn't follow any style guide. If you have a specific list in mind I can offer my opinion on a strictly case-by-case basis, but remember that such edits are implicitly "correcting an error". If it's not actually wrong per se it should be left alone; there's an enormous difference between grammatical errors and stylistic differences: "When either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so." Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capitals and quotation marks in song titles

Why can song titles of recorded songs not just use the convention of capitals for the initial letter of each word, as has always been used on record labels? Especially in a list of titles where the unnecessarily addedd "" looks extremely cluttered.Jameselmo (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Music already has guidelines in place that suggest normalizing capitalization in song titles. That being said, I think it's quite helpful to distinguish longer works from shorter ones by either putting them in italics or quotes, respectively (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles)).– Cyrus XIII (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this does not address my questions. I'm suggesting a change in the Wiki guidlines that you quoted. I feel they need to be more flexible in regard to song titles as I clearly stated. If this is not the correct forum for this please direct me to the appropriate.Jameselmo (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, then I guess Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (titles) is the way to go then. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Small cleanup

I truncated the last sentence in the lead; see edit history.

[edit] Mixed or non-capitalization

This is a STUPID guideline.

k d lang is k d lang. NOT K D Lang. If we are allowing articles under people's stage names then we should be capitalizing according to the stage name - because K D Lang, does not exist. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but walls are more responsive than the champions of this MoS... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "The" vs. "the" - again

Although we know it's the most common word in the English laguage, I find it rather surprising that, at best, cannot find readily our policy regarding it. Currently I'm in a dispute whether to use "The Holocaust" or "the Holocaust" in the middle of a sentence in a Wikipedia page. I subscribe to the latter form. Please advise. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the church vs. the Church

I've been interpreting Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Institutions to also refer to churches as well (also see this that states "Never use capitalizations such as "the Church" or "The Church" to refer to any specific Latter Day Saint church. For all such churches, "the church" is acceptable when the word "church" is an uncapitalized common noun"). This issue has come up in a featured article candidacy in regards to Roman Catholic Church. I want to a) see if the regulars on this page agree with my interpretation b) see if there needs to be a larger, centralized discussion on this topic and c) alter the MoS accordingly for religious institutions. Hopefully, this won't be a big deal because it seems pretty darn straight forward to me (and introducing capitalization can run into confusion or POV issues on articles about more than one religious institutions). Anyway, what do others think?-Andrew c [talk] 23:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The general rule should be that the proper names of buildings and organizations are usually capitalized, except when capitalization would create confusion with a larger organization, especially a parent organization. In the case of religions, though, WP:NPOV requires a little flexibility to let the religions tell their own stories in their own words, and sometimes this includes capitalization, as long as no ambiguity is introduced. Some judgment calls are involved.
However, looking at the lead and first section of Roman Catholic Church, I don't see any of these judgment calls; the capitalization seems fine, but for other reasons. I wouldn't be happy with saying "also known as The Church" in the first sentence, because that conflicts with the claims of other churches, but I'm okay with the capitalization that I see in the third sentence, because "the Church" clearly has "the (Roman) Catholic Church" as an antecedent. Similarly, "the President" would be okay in a sentence clearly referring to the current president of a country. Can you point out any instances where you strongly agree or disagree with the capitalization? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Outside wikipedia, I can agree with your statement: I'm okay with the capitalization that I see in the third sentence, because "the Church" clearly has "the (Roman) Catholic Church" as an antecedent. Similarly, the same logic would apply to the sentence if we replaced "Catholic Church" with Yale, and "the Church" with "the University". However, here on wikipedia, the MoS specifically says that we don't capitalize nouns that are not proper, even if they are referencing an antecedent which is a proper noun. By saying you don't have a problem with the capitalization of the Church, are you saying you disagree completely with our existing rules on capitalization of institutions, or are you saying there is something special about religious institutions that gives them a separate set of guidelines than universities? Based on your above comments, what do you recommend we should do to alter this page when it comes to capitalization of religion institutions and non-proper nouns and should we change the LDS guidelines as well?-Andrew c [talk] 03:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

←This guideline actually skirts the difficult case. It follows common usage on capitalizing "offices":

When making reference to a specific office, generally use uppercase: "The British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, said today…" (A good rule of thumb is whether the sentence uses a definite article [the] or an indefinite article [a]. If the sentence uses the, use "Prime Minister".

So, "The Mayor talked for fifteen minutes at the press conference." This guideline also follows common usage in not capitalizing, for instance, "the university" when referring to Yale. It's institutions that are more "august" or more "intimate" than Yale where usage varies, and this guideline doesn't say anything about that; perhaps it should. I'll check the style guidelines tomorrow. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 05:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There has been a long discussion at WT:MOS#University. There seems general agreement that the university example used here is more complex than it looks, and therefore a simple rule on the subject is undesirable. (As for church, I will defer to the discussion at RCC, but I see no likelihood of a consensus on lower-case, and have therefore removed the example; we should not use an example so fraught with theological issues anyway.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I think American English is clear, but writers in other countries and writers who are targeting specific professional or academic audiences are not so fortunate; they'll have to continue to wrestle with this. I'm fine with leaving it off of this page. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Sept, would you be okay with removing the disputed tag if we remove the word "church" and add the words "In American English"? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, but no. We should not be bothering to specify American English usage; more seriously, the idiomatic use of the University when a particular university is meant may well be more American than English. I deny that American English is clear; CMOS misrepresents it, in an effort to give a rule of thumb which can be applied quickly enough for a daily newspaper. I'll do a draft, which you should feel free to revert, which should capture the general ternd. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm okay with your draft if we remove "any university offers courses in the arts and sciences", because I'm not aware that anyone needs to be told that "any university" is lowercase. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You, Sir, are an arrant optimist; you should see University of Delhi before I did a copy-edit. But I have no problem with cutting; we can always put it back. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Church, when used alone, is usually lowercase

TCMOS covers "Religious Names and Terms" from sections 8.97 through 8.119, so it's not light reading. This section seems most relevant to me: "8.106 Church: When used alone to denote organized Christianity as an institution, the church is usually lowercased." NYTM (1999, paperback) gives: "In all later references, to building or organization: the church." AP Stylebook gives "The pope said the church opposes abortion." - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Great! Thanks for the research. Would it be too bold, as of yet, to add "church" under the list of "institutions" already included on this page? I'd like a little more input, but having sources is nice.-Andrew c [talk] 15:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Done, but with disclaimers. American journalistic (and to a lesser extent, academic) English is usually well-described by the style guides. British English is a little harder, and I don't know what to say about it. Capitalization rules can be brutally complex, but Wikipedian style guidelines can't be. I'm not sure what to do about all this. I made a quick and simplistic edit. Over the next few months, I'm going to try to round up as much input into style issues as I can. Wikipedia could really use its own fully-developed style guide. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
To be more specific, though, in the case under discussion regarding the RCC article, the question really is whether to capitalize "church" when it is used as an abbreviation, i.e., instead of having to write out "Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church." Some of the grammar books I've been looking at say you are supposed to capitalize abbreviations for proper nouns, but the only examples I can find are like: "Rev. Miller" instead of "Reverand Miller." Is there anything in the MoS about this? I can't find anything. Polycarp7 (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm cross posting this from the straw poll at the Catholicism entry -- Chicago clearly states that when used in a proper noun Church is capitalized. Here are the relevant discussions in Chicago: from 8.106 1) "When used alone to denote organized Christianity as an institution, the church is usually lowercased." 2) "Church is capitalized when part of the formal name of a denomination (e.g., the United Methodist Church; see other examples in 8.105) or congregation (e.g., the Church of St. Thomas the Apostle)," and from 8.105 3) "Roman Catholicism; the Roman Catholic Church (but a Roman Catholic church)." To use "the church" according to TCMOS is not correct when referring to one denomination specifically. The "Church" here is used as an abbreviated form of the "Roman Catholic Church," and hence is a proper noun that specifies one denomination only.PelleSmith (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The exact same argument about "abbreviation" could be used for everything listed under "institution". Hospitals, universities, etc. Is there something that I am missing that makes Christian denominations different? Or are Polycarp7 and PelleSmith arguing to alter the entire "institutions" portion of this manual of style (so that we capitalize University, Hopstial, etc when it is an "abbreviation" for the full name)? I just want to figure out the scope that this conversation needs to take on, and perhaps we could start discussing more formal proposals. While I wanted to leave sleeping dogs lie (if you will), it seems like the "Church" issue at RCC needs to turn into a much larger conversation for there to be a satisfactory result. Perhaps even a centralized discussion. We'll see how things go over the next few days. -Andrew c [talk] 04:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. That position was supported by all the guides 20 years ago, but none of them now. Chicago has 23 sections on capitalization of religious terms, and not one of them is exactly on point, but I believe I can make the case tomorrow when I get up that Chicago supports me. NYTM and AP Stylebook are clear; when "The pope said the church opposes abortion", I don't think he was talking about the Methodists, I think he meant the Roman Catholic Church. Of course proper nouns are capitalized, but AP Stylebook says that, in that sentence, church is not a proper noun, although it would have been 20 years ago. AP Stylebook is the guide used by a very large majority of newspapers in the US that rely on a professional style guide. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
You make a convincing argument. That said, I can see arguments going the other way as well. It isn't uncommon to see common nouns capitalizes when they act as "abbreviated" forms of proper nouns. If there was a new consensus, I wouldn't mind changing the entire style section. What bothered me was that (at least to me) the MoS was clear, but one article was trying to go against the MoS instead of altering the MoS itself. If the whole MoS is changed, I think that's great and I'd be happy. On the other hand, if the MoS is revised to make it clear that churches, like universities, shouldn't be capitalized outside of proper nouns, I'd be happy as well (and I'd hope the users at the article in question would accept that and move on). To me, it's a win/win situation, as long as there is a clear new consensus about this matter here in the MoS, and that new consensus acts to settle the dispute at Talk:Roman Catholic Church. I think it is divisive and shot in the face of the cohesiveness of the entire project to try to alter basic style guidelines on one article, but not for the entire site. And as it stands, we could have situations where LDS articles may get upset that the Catholics get to capitalize Church, but they do not. I'm trying to avoid denominational conflicts like that now by trying to get a discussion about this to reach a new consensus and have the MoS revised to be clear on the issue. Like I said, I'd be happy with either outcome (capital or lowercase), as long as it is a true reflection of the community's desire. (IMO, it helps if the community's desire is based on more scholarly, notable style guides, as opposed to personal opinion and what was learned in grade school, as those things aren't really reliable or verifiable).-Andrew c [talk] 13:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Apparently another editor claims to have asked TCMOS about "church" specifically and received clarification that it is never capitalized unless part of an official name (e.g. the Roman Catholic Church, or the Catholic Church but not the Church). If this is the case their own presentation needs rewriting. It this is the case then peer reviewed academic publications oddly do not enforce the Chicago rule in their own editorial oversight, and I don't just mean Catholic publications, theological publications, and/or other publications associated with Christianity specifically. A quick database search in historical and social science publications finds the same result all the way up to this current year. Examples here include the Australian Journal of Anthropology, Adolescence, Sociology of Religion, Journal of the History of Ideas and The Sixteenth Century Journal. The result is of course mixed with some articles using the lower case and some the upper case--though a cursory and informal review using Wilson Web gets more upper case usage in the last two years. There are also contextual differences and I've seen what seems to be a preference with some to always use the full name, or at least "Catholic Church," but never "the church." Notably I found one example of the "Catholic church." All in all, as I said, there seems to be an overwhelming preference for not using "the church," and either using the entire name with capitalization or the capitalized abbreviation "the Church." My point here is not to prove that one usage is more popular in academia (though I believe it still is) but simply to suggest that if you go the academic route here you will at least find mixed results, and not simply because Catholic writers or Christian publications use the upper case. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The FAC at Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church#Straw_Poll seems most urgent, so I'll answer there. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acronyms

I disagree with the point about 'it is not necessary to capitalize the letters in an expanded acronym to show the source of the acronym:

i.e. incorrect (FOREX - FOReign EXchange)

    correct   (FOREX - foreign exchange)

I think that some acronyms are so contrived and hard to follow that, in these cases, it should happen:

i.e. (made-up example)

MADMAN - MAssive acaDeMic Arsenal Nuclues

Saccerzd 21:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Offering made-up examples doesn't really advance your position at all. Style guides are meant to be practical documents. If the only reason for changing them is to accomodate fictional predicaments, they're no longer as useful.
I agree with the guideline as it's currently stated. Drawing special attention to how the abbreviation was formed insults the readers' intelligence and is not necessary. Reading through the acronym and initialism topic, I've developed the opinion that drawing so much attention to the forming letters is distracting, especially when the the abbreviation is not the actual focus of an article. There are exceptions to every rule, and the wording in the MoS is not so stern as to forbid the occasional straying from the guideline for a particularly hairy abbreviation. It should definitely be avoided, though. So much of it just makes the expansions look weird.
According to Abbreviation, the example in the MoS is a "syllabic abbreviation," not an acronym per se.
--Rob Kennedy 00:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we should stay away from drawing attention to letters which define an acronym or initialism simply because we think a reader would be insulted or distracted by it. Honestly, we define the color Red... This is an information source and it should be as clear as possible. I only see pros and no cons. How would a reader be distracted from a single instance where emphasis is drawn to certain letters in a phrase?
  • Pro: It is clearer and more informative to draw attention to the letters which make up an acronym.
  • Con: ?
I propose changing this guideline to allow or even encourage this practice.
Nicholas SL Smithchatter 02:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree so change. Especially in "lists of ... acronyms" where there is no risk of confusing the reader as to title case, brandnames are generally the exeception and the whole point of the article is to explain abbreviations and how they are so formed (eg. List of medical abbreviations) David Ruben Talk 00:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Any objections? I'll change the guideline unless anyone can bring up a drawback. Nicholas SL Smithchatter 02:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It depends on the examples. On which pages is this currently an issue? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Question of Style

The above query regarding capitalization and the Roman Catholic Church is an on-going discussion on the articles talk page. Currently there is a straw poll underway at Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church#Capitalization_of_.22Church.22 regarding the style guidelines for capitalization and church bodies, which may be of interest to those who watch this page. Pastordavid (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

See above for what the American style guides say. I'll go tune in to the discussion; I understand it may be a sensitive topic for some. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
And for some it is not a "sensitive" topic but a matter of common academic usage. I'm not sure now where I stand on this, and may in fact be convinced that "the church" is preferable but it has become clear to me that "the church" is rarely used to refer to the Catholic Church in peer reviewed publications still at this date in time (and by this I mean in the Social Sciences and History). I do not think you were making an insinuation with ill will in mind, but I do think that we need to stop talking about this as a "sensitive" issue because it implies that those who prefer "the Church" do so simply because of their religious identities, and that is not necessarily the case.PelleSmith (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I will be more careful with what I say. I meant "I can't just throw out an opinion here, because religion is a sensitive topic, so I need to go tune in to the discussion." Thanks for your AGF. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I was a significant contributor to the Roman Catholic Church article. I have almost all of the source materials used to create both the Beliefs section and Church History sections. I am not an MoS expert but I will tell you that in all of the peer reviewed source materials where the subject of the book was specifically about Roman Catholic Church, the university professor authors used the upper case C when using the word Church as a substitute for repeating the name Roman Catholic Church over and over again throughout the book. As a reader, I found it easier to understand their meaning when these books talked about Roman Catholic Church issues and their interactions with other Christian institutions. I also did some research at our local library that I posted on the RCC page that I have copied and pasted here from the RCC page:
"I spent some time in the library doing some research on this subject. According to L. Sue Baugh, author of Essentials of English Grammar, p 57, "Rules for capitalization, abbreviations, and numbers can be confusing. Not all grammar books agree on the same style." According to Anne Stilman, author of Grammatically Correct, p 271 "It may sometimes be appropriate to capitalize certain descriptive or identifying names and terms that are normally lowercase. The decision to capitalize may be made on the basis of convention, policy, expectations of readers or any other reason that is specific to your circumstances." According to Jim Corder of Texas Christian University and John Ruskiewicz of Univerisity of Texas at Austin authors of Handbook of Current English 8th edition, p 276 "Some words can be spelled either with or without capitals. These forms must be distinguished because they often have different meanings: Several examples ensue among which is "Orthodox beliefs (of the Greek Orthodox Church) vs orthodox beliefs (conventional) and Catholic sympathies (of or with the Catholic Church) vs catholic sympathies (broad; universal)." Clearly there is room for personal judgement on this issue from what these sources are saying and given that the article is a long one that makes mention of different churches and happens to be about one particular church, it is common sense to capitalize the one church you are talking about in an effort to make that fact clear to the reader. That is not POV, that is good style."NancyHeise (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on a wonderful article. Feel free to revert me, but I'm going to copy this over to the Straw Poll thread, where the action seems to be at the moment. Passing the WP:FAC is the most urgent issue; after the FAC, then we may want to come back here and summarize the arguments for this guideline. After that, I can feel a discussion coming on in WT:MoS on which sources are most persuasive in our style guidelines. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriel

I posted at Ilkali's talk page about his two reverts; seems like an NPOV issue to me. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My preference is to talk about it here. Have you seen Christian mythology? Is that article also an NPOV violation?
Again, nobody would capitalise 'monster' when talking about Medusa. By pandering to irrational hypersensitivities you have done worse than removing the example - you have confused its meaning. It would be better to have nothing. Ilkali (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If you think the example is a worthwhile one, and I agree about that, consider changing the context it was originally in. References to fictional beings from literature, the use of the word "creature," and the less exact but perhaps more popular definition of "myth" are not ideal when talking about a "supernatural being" with this much significance to a majority of the worlds religious peoples. The word "creature," in fact simply strikes me as wrong. Medusa is a "creature" but would you call Odysseus a "creature"? What about Zeus? I think there could easily be a compromise here that uses the Gabriel example and makes the surrounding context more appropriate.PelleSmith (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
'Creature' could be substituted for something like 'entity'. 'mythical creatures' for 'mythical or religious creatures', perhaps, with some instances of 'mythical' simply removed (they're mostly redundant anyway). I disagree with your first point, though. I think there's merit to talking about elves and fairies at the same time as angels and devas. It gives a better indication of the scope of the guideline. Ilkali (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
"Being" would be more precise than "entity." Mythical creatures could be replaced by "mythical or religious beings." One of the problems here is that the angels which appear in the narratives of the Abrahamic faiths are not primarily considered, either by believers or academics, as "mythological." Within the specific context of or study of Christian mythology Gabriel may logically be considered a mythological being, but the guideline about writing the "angel Gabriel" does not only apply to this rather specific context. So my point is that it isn't simply out of respect to believers, amongst whom I don't count myself, but from a more general concern that I do not like the notion of simply throwing a being that is part of a living religious belief system into a guideline that is currently, as written, only about mythology.PelleSmith (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
"One of the problems here is that the angels which appear in the narratives of the Abrahamic faiths are not primarily considered, either by believers or academics, as "mythological."". Believers never believe that their own myths are mythological. There is no "unless it's part of a current world religion" clause in any well-cited definition of a myth. Ilkali (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Since you selectively quoted I'm assuming you missed the the "believers or academics" bit. Angels, and the narratives they are in, are not usually part of scholarship on mythology and scholarship about them is rarely ever in terms of their "mythical," "mythic" or "mythological" status. The believers bit is about being respectful, the academics bit is not. In all scholarship it is correct to write "the angel Gabriel" and since a very small amount of that scholarship has anything to do with myth it is inappropriate to make our guideline out in this manner.PelleSmith (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
"Since you selectively quoted [...]". I quoted the part I was replying to. Calm down.
"In all scholarship it is correct to write "the angel Gabriel" and since a very small amount of that scholarship has anything to do with myth it is inappropriate to make our guideline out in this manner". Can you present evidence that the relevant academics employ a definition of myth that is not appropriate to angels? Ilkali (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Most academics who would make reference to the "angel Gabriel" would not in any way be making reference to the Angel as a "mythical creature". I'm not sure exactly what your question has to do with this at all. Calling the narratives of the Bible "myths" is a very particular way of framing them. Calling the figures from those narratives "mythical" beings is a very particular way of treating them. This particularity is not common or apropos to most scholarship about angels, or in this case specifically the angel Gabriel. Is there something confusing about this? Do you want me to rephrase it again? Why are you so concerned with calling a key figure from Abrahamic narratives "mythical"?PelleSmith (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The use of the term "mythical creature" in connection with angels is going to cause offense to large categories of people. The intent of the guideline is correct (and "the Angel Gabriel" would indeed be bad style), but characterizing this as being about "mythical creatures" is offensive and unnecessary. The point is that it has nothing to do with whether it is mythical or supernatural or not: indications of species are not capitalized with proper names unless they would be capitalized independently. So we can have "the African Desmond Tutu", which is properly capitalized because "African" is a proper noun, but "the bishop Desmond Tutu", which is not, because "bishop" is a common noun. Then there is "Archbishop Desmond Tutu", which is capitalized because here "Archbishop" is a title. There is no special rule for "mythical creatures", just the general rule that species names in constructions like this are not capitalized with proper names unless they would be independently. Tb (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What I'm hearing is that this is another case where there is some friction between academic and journalistic values. There are specific academic disciplines in which the word "mythological" is claimed (I don't really believe it, but that's not the point) not to carry any judgment about where it's true or not, and those are the sources that were consulted in Christian mythology, an article that carries the closest thing to a disclaimer that I've seen in WP article-space. People who write for a wider audience believe that the word "mythological" does carry a value judgment. Should we favor academic values or journalistic values in this case? Why or why not?
Why is it okay to describe Medusa as a mythological creature but not Gabriel? Ilkali (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Because nobody believes in Medusa anymore - if they ever did. Therefore Medusa is an accepted myth. Calling Gabriel a myth is POV. 212.140.128.142 (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it NPOV for Wikipedia to assert that Medusa never existed? Do we have a cite for that? Ilkali (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Ilkali, please read what I just posted above. The angel Gabriel is almost never a "mythical creature" in terms of the discourses in which it is used both popularly and academically. Medusa is almost always a "mythical creature" in both common and academic discourses. The fact that in a specific academic context Gabriel can be considered a "mythical being" does not outweigh the most common usages inside and outside the academy. If this guideline is going to be practical in application it should be clear, and incorporate the language used for supernatural beings in contexts outside of "mythology." Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't post a comment just to tell me to read a different comment. I'm happy to read and reply to it without your urging. Ilkali (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
(African is not a proper noun)
We have this section because people always think that English orthography bows down before their religious beliefs. If we could rely on people to consistently apply simple rules like those concerning proper and common noun capitalisation, we would. But here in the real world, we need to spell this out to them. Ilkali (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on the larger question at WT:MoS, and that might take a while. In the meantime, note that "mythical" and "mythological" have a definite sense of "allegorical" and "fictitious" in Websters Online, AMHER, etc, which is not what you are trying to say, Ilkali, if I understand you right. I think you're really intending to talk about the words "myth" and "mythology", which are the words that show up in the infobox at Christian mythology. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Everyone please note that Ilkali made a change an hour ago that might be acceptable to everyone; is it? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
No it is not. The term "creature" is still entirely inaccurate not preferable and to those who "believe" most probably depending on how they read it possibly offensive. I will make a slight change and see if people are OK with it.PelleSmith (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it that you don't think angels are creatures, or that you don't think describing them as such implies the proper reverence? Regardless, you didn't just make a "slight change" - you heavily altered the structure of the paragraph:
  1. "denoting" -> "denoting types of". "types of" is redundant.
  2. ", except in the context of fantasy works in which the term also denotes an ethnicity" -> "An exception can be found in certain works of the fantasy genre, such as those of J.R.R. Tolkien, in which the terms also denote ethnicities". Your version is longer without delivering any more information (why are we mentioning an author? are we assuming people don't know what fantasy is?). And it's describing an exception to a rule but is separated from that rule by a sentence on a different topic.
  3. "mythical or religious" -> "religious, mythical or supernatural". Why? Do the first two not cover everything?
Motivate these changes, please. Ilkali (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
"I" don't think angels exist, but what "I think" is not apropos here. When I mention "respect" it has nothing to do with reverence towards angels, but instead it concerns showing respect to a very large population of people who inhabit this planet, among whom I don't even count myself. I purposefully altered the structure of the paragraph for clarity, but maybe it didn't have to be this long. Also note that I used the general structure of the person who edited before your last change. Let me deal with your specific points.
  1. "Types of" is only redundant if the sentence is clear without it, which I am not sure about. I only added it to make sure it was understood that it is the generic type that is not capitalized, while we do capitalize the proper names of specific beings. Does the reader clearly understand this without the specificity? Of course this isn't a huge deal and it can be removed if my addition is not helpful.
  2. The placement of this part was confusing, especially given the ambiguity of the first part. The exception should be made after the entire general rule is clarified and the rule is not clarified until we hear about what parts of terms denoting these types of beings are actually to be capitalized. How do you think that is a different topic? If it is a different topic then why not cut it altogether? I am not sure I understand what you mean by that. Speaking of different topics, I am also not exactly sure why this exception is in here. Since when do the worlds and characters of fantasy fiction fall under, "Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents." I imagine it was because of the terminological crossover that this exception was stated here. In other words this rule is about religion, not about fantasy fiction. The lesser topic is how this rule doesn't apply to fantasy fiction. Is that unclear? Also, FYI, many people would not understand what "fantasy works" are without some clarification. Maybe mentioning one author is unnecessary but I think my version of this was an improvement, especially with the wikilinking.
  3. Supernatural makes the category more inclusive, but perhaps we can do away with it.
I will get rid of "supernatural," and the example of Tolkien but can you please explain further why we should make the other changes you suggest. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creature and myth

The reason why "being" is preferable to "creature" is for the sake of NPOV. Being is a much more neutral term which passes no judgment and makes no inference. "Creature" can have many more specific connotations such as referring to lower animals, but even in its generic form it implies at least that is is an animate entity that has "been created". As I said before you wouldn't call Zeus or Odysseus "creatures," even if you could easily justify doing so by using the most generic definition of the term. A similar matter was breached earlier with "myth". While we can justify the claim that many of the narratives of the Bible are "myths" by way of this term's most common academic usage we also have other definitions of myth which are quite different. At least one of these very common definitions implies something that in this context is the furthest thing from being NPOV: (OED) "A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief; a widely held misconception; a misrepresentation of the truth. Also: something existing only in myth; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing." The overarching issue here is to be clear with the guidelines in the most NPOV way we can. Do you agree with this basic principle? I agreed with you that the "angel Gabriel" is a better example than the "monster Medusa" because it is much more commonly used, but I also agree that we can make this rule just as clear in a more neutral capacity. Isn't that what we are striving for?PelleSmith (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a tangential point, but I'd just remark that Christian angelology definitely holds that angels are creatures; that is, that they were created (as opposed to, say, begotten). I assume this is the same for other Abrahamic religions, and as far as I know non-Abrahamic religions don't speak of angels per se (though they might have beings that play roughly the same role). --Trovatore (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
But they are not "lower animals", in any religion. My point was simply that "being" doesn't even imply what the most generic form of "creature" implies, but your point is well taken. Also, even within the perspective you refer to, "creature" is clearly not the word of preference, even if (as before) the case can be made that an angel is a creature. I guess I'm just trying to reiterate that the overarching point here is simply to imply as little as possible, and to provide language that is as neutral as possible. Again, thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign Exchange

Yes, I agree, that works better than caps for me too. There seems to be a consensus that caps are too "loud" if there is any good way to avoid them. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plural proper nouns

What is the correct way to capitalize plural proper nouns? For example, "Marquette County" and "Delta County" are obviously proper nouns and the word "county" should be capitalized. But if you wanted to refer to both of them at once, and avoid repetition, you would say "Marquette and Delta Counties". Should that C be capitalized or not?

If not, would the same logic apply to saying "presidents Bush and Clinton" rather than "Presidents Bush and Clinton"? -- Kéiryn (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you're giving American examples, Chicago gives: "Lakes Michigan and Erie" (so I think you need caps in your examples), but they also give "the Illinois and the Chicago rivers" in section 8.57 and "Carnegie and Euclid avenues" in section 8.60. But "the X of..." is always lowercase. My competence ends at the American border. The general principle these days is: lowercase except when you can't get away with it, that is, when the expression is a dead-obvious proper noun. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No offense (since it's obviously not your fault) but that clears up absolutely nothing. I can't fathom any logical reason why it would be "Lakes Michigan and Erie" but "the Illinois and Chicago rivers" – especially since both are US examples. Also, in my experience, "the X of..." is rarely lowercase. For example, it's always City of New York.
I used to have a hard copy of the MLA guide lying around somewhere, I'll see if I can find it. Does anyone else know what other style guides say? -- Kéiryn (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't think of a reason either. Capitalization has always been the most disappointing part of Chicago for me; way too many words, hard to make sense of it. The url for the section on capitalization in the abbreviated MLA guide at Purdue is http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/592/01/, but it isn't helpful. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
From Chicago: "Where the government rather than the place is meant, the words state, city, and the like are usually capitalized.
She works for the Village of Forest Park

That is a City of Chicago ordinance.

but

Residents of the village of Forest Park enjoy easy access to the city of Chicago.

- Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. As I went up to research, I realized that I was thinking the same thing re: City of New York.
Speaking of which, I went up to the university library to research the issue. MLA and APA say absolutely nothing on the issue. (Woohoo!) After looking at Chicago myself, they do make it pretty clear that there's a distinction between the generic term (i.e. lake, river, county) coming before or after the specific one. When it comes first, it's always capitalized; when it comes second, it's usually not. However, of course, it doesn't enlighten us as to what the logic is behind that. Talking to the man behind the reference desk, when I asked him the question before enlightening him as to what Chicago said, he automatically said that the C in Counties should be capitalized – and after looking through Chicago together, decided to just chalk it up to personal preference, because he smirked and agreed with me that it's totally illogical.
So given that we're trying to write a style guide for Wikipedia articles here, do we follow Chicago, do we follow logic (IMHO), or do we leave it up to preference? -- Kéiryn (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The theme IMO is to lower barriers to entry into writing both for Wikipedia and professionally; that's what Wikipedia does so much better than academia and the writing professions. But lowering barriers doesn't mean saying "anything is okay", because that won't help people when they write outside WP, and it won't even help them much in Wikipedia, if they don't have reasons they can hold out to defend themselves against other people messing with their stuff. I'd say the principle here is that modern style guides have adopted what's called a "down" style in capitalization, which means roughly: you have great latitude to reinterpret words as common nouns. "The City of Chicago has boosted employee salaries every year, and the city...". The second "city" can be lowercased on the theory that you might be thinking "among all possible cities, this one...". Regarding cities, AP Stylebook says: "Capitalize city if part of a proper name, an integral part of an official name, or a regularly used nickname: Kansas City, New York City, Windy City, City of Light, Fun City. Lowercase elsewhere: a Texas city; the city government; the city Board of Education; and all city of phrases: the city of Boston." - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

So for Wikipedia purposes, either "Marquette and Delta Counties" or "Marquette and Delta counties" should be considered correct? -- Kéiryn (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd support that. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
If there is a distinction of meaning, it probably is: the City of New York is the municipality, the artificial corporation; the city of Boston is the mass of buildings. If so, both are preferable in their places. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First words in bulleted lists

Should the first word in bulleted lists be capitalized, like in see also sections for example? If you would reply on my talk page I would be quite grateful. --Emesee (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Common noun god in monotheistic contexts

I'd like to establish consensus on a few uses of /gɒd/-words (by which I intend to denote both the common noun god, equivalent to deity, and the proper noun God, which specifically references God. I reference them this way to avoid accusations of non-neutrality). Please consider the following cases:

  • Christians believe in a single god/God.
  • The Trinity is three persons in one god/God.
  • Allah is a god/God.
  • The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each fully the same god/God.

It is my contention that in each of these cases, the /gɒd/-word in question is the common noun god. I would hope we are already in agreement on that. The question is: Should an exception be made to the MoS policy ("Common nouns should not be capitalized") for these cases? If so, we should write this into policy. If not (and I do not believe it should, for the same reason that we do not make exceptions for capitalising pronouns), I believe our section on religion needs to be spelled out even more clearly, to make this explicit. Ilkali (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

We are not already in agreement on that. When one says "Christians believe in a single God", this is not grammatically different it seems from, "I believe in an inspiring Abraham Lincoln." English is perfectly content to use articles, adjectives, and numbers in front of proper names. As for "Allah is a god/God", this would probably never appear in a well-written article. It would be correct to say "Allah is God", but to say "Allah is a god/God", regardless of captilization, would be incorrect, making Allah one god among possibly many, whereas it is a part of the doctrine of Islam that Allah is the only possible God. Tb (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
As I've explained elsewhere, a statement like "Allah is a god" does not entail or imply that there are other gods in existence. It just ascribes a set of attributes to Allah.
"When one says "Christians believe in a single God", this is not grammatically different it seems from, "I believe in an inspiring Abraham Lincoln."". I'd think the nature of the adjective single would make it obvious this is not the case. A single God? Isn't that slightly tautological? What's more, it's not even an expression of monotheism - believing in a single God does not preclude also believing in a single Zeus, a single Vishnu, etc. The sentence makes far more sense and is far more informative if the /gɒd/-word is taken to be a common noun.
Which seems most like the original sentence: "Christians believe in a single deity" or "Christians believe in a single Yahweh"? Ilkali (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, this is not a question of "exceptions", but of following good contemporary English style. Good contemporary English style--check out, for example, the Chicago Manual of Style says not to capitalize pronouns, but to capitalize "God" in monotheistic references without exception. Tb (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
"Moreover, this is not a question of "exceptions", but of following good contemporary English style". These are common nouns. If "good contemporary English style" requires us to capitalise them then it requires us to make an exception to the general English rule that common nouns are not capitalised. Ilkali (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does; however, this sort of thing is why these pages are guidelines, to be followed with "common sense and the occasional exception" as the template says. Having said that, we do not need to write out every exception; we will never succeed in doing so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Given the potential for disagreement over this, and the breadth of contexts in which it is relevant, I do not think it's sensible to leave it to "common sense". Ilkali (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The commonsense involved amounts to following general English usage, rather than making up our own, or pursuing the usage of a doctrinaire minority. But in fact, we will have to leave it to common sense; most editors will never see this page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Anderson is right. This is nothing more than a matter of common sense. As I wrote on God's talk page ...

It's very straight-forward grammar. Take Don Coppersmith for example. He is a cryptographer and mathematician. He is not a coppersmith, however, it's probable that at least one of Coppersmith's ancestors was a coppersmith. ...

If you've found instances of bad grammar, fix them. If you're reverted explain on the talk page. Writing a rule to enforce common sense should be a last resort. Write such a rule and you're likely even to worsen things by making it appear that this is some WP convention when in reality it's nothing more than primary-school grammar. JIMp talk·cont 00:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
People often have great difficulty applying common sense where religion is concerned. The most I am proposing is to add an extra example sentence to the existing three, to reflect this usage case. Ilkali (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
(left) What is your proposed sentence? Your argument so far reads as though it will be a change to English idiom, which we cannot and should not enforce, per WP:CRYSTAL; but let's see. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
"Your argument so far reads as though it will be a change to English idiom, which we cannot and should not enforce". This has nothing to do with idiom - it is purely a stylistic matter. Since capitalisation of /gɒd/-words in contexts such as those above is not consistent across users of English, I am proposing that we clarify whether it is dispreferred. Further, I am arguing that it is entirely analogous to capitalisation of pronouns, with the extra problem that it introduces ambiguity, and that it should be dispreferred. Regarding the exact nature of the change: I would favor either adding an extra example sentence similar to those above, or adding an extra clause to the sentence on common nouns, such as: "Common nouns, regardless of their referents, should not be capitalized". The former is perhaps preferable, since it does not rely on knowledge of the distinction between common and proper nouns.
I've no idea how you would relate an orthographic style issue to WP:CRYSTAL. Ilkali (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Stylistic matters are idioms, by nature. English idiom is manifestly to capitalize God in most, if not all, of the sentences discussed above. I strongly oppose any effort to change this until such change prevails outside Wikipedia, and the effort to anticipate such change is an effort to predict the future, which we should not do here any more than in article space. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
"English idiom is manifestly to capitalize God in most, if not all, of the sentences discussed above". Well, it's common. So is capitalising pronouns. The point is that both are practices conditioned largely by one's religious beliefs - they are much less common among people who do not believe in God. Where there is this kind of divide, Wikipedia should (and, in the case of pronouns, does) take the neutral position, and adhere to basic orthographical rules. People are free to glorify their gods on their talk pages. They shouldn't be doing it in article space. Ilkali (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The point is that both are practices conditioned largely by one's religious beliefs - they are much less common among people who do not believe in God. I'm not sure this is true - Bertrand Russell routinely capitalized; but the claim flips both ways, proving equally well that lowercasing is conditioned by irreligious beliefs. Wikipedia should do what is customarily done, without inquiring into the reasons for it; for that Ilkali's admission that it is common suffices. We are not an institute for language reform; we will follow them when and if they accomplish their ends. To do otherwise is to imitate those seventh-century clerics who objected to the study of Latin grammar as leading to paganism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
For the last time: This is not about language reform, it is about choosing between two competing convention. One is in line with basic orthographical standards, one is a flouting of said standards that is based in religion and introduces ambiguity. Ilkali (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Your proposal, however, is to choose one of them, even where it is unusual and therefore unnatural. No, I object, again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore this sentence appears to have subtly appeared since the last time Ilkali was arguing on this page: Pronouns referring to deities, or nouns (other than names) referring to any material or abstract representation of any deity, human or otherwise, are not capitalized. I don't believe it to be consensus, although the reflexive capitalization some editors would perform in such contexts is unlikely to be consensus either. The first question is, therefore, does anybody other than Ilkali support this, or is it a one-man band? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That sentence has been there since the very first version of the page. Am I to apply Hanlon's razor here?
That aside, could you explain your problem with that part of the manual? Ilkali (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
What part of I don't believe it to be consensus [or usage, btw] did you fail to understand? If only Ilkali is willing to support it, it is not consensus; if someone else is, we'll see. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The failure to understand is yours. You quoted a long sentence with many components - how am I expected to know which parts you object to? Are you seriously advocating capitalising pronouns? Ilkali (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I see that it was there when this page was split off. How or when it got here, I do not know, nor why the section above is phrased as it is; if it is still consensus, fine (it may do more good than harm). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This is only relevant to American English, but Chicago says: "8.102 Pronouns: Pronouns referring to God or Jesus are not capitalized. (Note that they are lowercased in most English translations of the Bible.) [Examples:] They prayed to God that he would deliver them. Jesus and his disciples". AP Stylebook says: "Lowercase pronouns referring to the deity: he, him, his, thee, thou, who, whose, thy, etc". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that would be normal in (some of) those contexts, and is covered by our existing preference for lower case; "If there were a Creator God, He would..." differs to my ear. Also, if we quote the King James (as we must in Messiah (oratorio), for example), this would infringe WP:V. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I am largely ignorant on orthography in religious matters. As an ignorant person, I'd be happy with something easy to remember, but I don't care much. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 00:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding numbers of people in agreement:
  1. Myself, of course.
  2. Bejnar: "I think that there is agreement that the word god should only be capitalized when it is a proper noun"
  3. Craig zimmerman: (responding to Bejnar): "There is full agreement here"
  4. SamuelRiv: "When referring to "a god" or "the god" or "my god", do not capitalize, but as a proper name "I love God" please capitalize"
  5. JIMp (by analogy with coppersmith): "Take Don Coppersmith for example. He is a cryptographer and mathematician. He is not a coppersmith, however, it's probable that at least one of Coppersmith's ancestors was a coppersmith"
These are just the examples found on this page. At a glance, you are the only person who has explicitly argued for making exceptions to normal common noun conventions. Consensus against capitalising pronouns would presumably be even stronger. You are pushing your own POV by removing the corresponding policy from the MoS. Ilkali (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I see the evidence differently.
I am the only one to oppose the rule for pronouns, which is what I doubt is consensus; insofar as it coincides with our general preference for lowercase, it is redundant; insofar as it exceeds that preference, it is doubtful. (I would equally deplore "because He, the Holy One of God, upon Whom be Peace", for the same fundamental reason: it's not common idiom.) On the other hand, Ilkali is the only one to support it, so far. If there is consensus to reinsert it, so be it.
As for the original question of god/God:
  • Craig Zimmermann goes on to say that Ilkali has actually made modifications in cases where the word "God" was indeed being used as a proper name. It is apparently a matter of distaste with the entity he feels is non-existent having its name capitalized. Your last example at the head of this section is another instance of this.
  • Quoting Jimp as though he agreed with you, when his first words of his post are Anderson is right raises real questions as to whether further discussion can be productive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
"I am the only one to oppose the rule for pronouns, which is what I doubt is consensus; insofar as it coincides with our general preference for lowercase, it is redundant; insofar as it exceeds that preference, it is doubtful". You are not making your position at all clear here. Do you agree that there should be no orthographical exceptions made for pronouns referencing deities?
"Craig Zimmermann goes on to say that Ilkali has actually made modifications in cases where the word "God" was indeed being used as a proper name". Which has nothing to do with whether common nouns should be capitalised. If you want to discuss whether a given token is a common noun or not then I'll indulge you in that later, but I'm not going to let you take this discussion away on a tangent.
"Quoting Jimp as though he agreed with you, when his first words of his post are Anderson is right raises real questions as to [...]". Right about whether common nouns should be capitalised? No. Right about something else? Yes. Again, tangents. Ilkali (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
On what grounds does Ilkali want the word in question to be treated polytheistically even in monotheistic contexts (cf. title of the section)? No monotheist would write, as Ilkali would, "Allah is a god" (implying a whole class of gods in the sense intended by the writer, what Ilkali calls a common noun), rather than "Allah is God". It would be like writing "This book is by a coppersmith", when we mean: "The author is Coppersmith". There is a certain logic to what is, as even Ilkali admits, the overwhelmingly prevailing usage. If, to please Ilkali, Wikipedia were to go against this prevailing usage, it would violate its fundamental rule about not accepting original research. Lima (talk) 08:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
"On what grounds does Ilkali want the word in question to be treated polytheistically even in monotheistic contexts (cf. title of the section)?". You presuppose that there are orthographical rules distinguishing between monotheism and polytheism. That is very much not a point of agreement.
"No monotheist would write, as Ilkali would, "Allah is a god" (implying a whole class of gods in the sense intended by the writer, what Ilkali calls a common noun), rather than "Allah is God". It would be like writing "This book is by a coppersmith", when we mean: "The author is Coppersmith"". Utter nonsense.
  1. As I've already explained here to someone else, to describe Allah as a god is simply to ascribe it traits associated with godhood. Nobody that knew a jot about semantics would entertain the idea that to describe something as a god is to assert the existence of other gods. "We live in a universe" does not entail multiple universes. "Dolly is a cloned sheep" does not entail the existence of other cloned sheep. "Taipei 101 is a 1,671-foot building" does not entail the existence of similarly sized buildings.
  2. Yes, "Allah is God" is a fine statement. Nobody is contesting such a use. Neither is anybody asserting that the statement "Allah is a god" is used often. But it is meaningful and informative, and the noun in question most definitely is a common noun. "Allah is a God" is the only variant we would have cause to question.
  3. Your analogy does not remotely hold, because you are ascribing an intended meaning to the sentence "Allah is a god" that patently isn't the meaning of the sentence. The analogue of "The author is Coppersmith" is "Allah is God". The analogue of "The author is a coppersmith" is "Allah is a god". We choose between them depending on what meaning we want to convey. None of them are 'wrong'.
"There is a certain logic to what is, as even Ilkali admits, the overwhelmingly prevailing usage". I think the most I've said is that it is 'common' or 'normal'. Neither entails 'overwhemingly prevailing'. And you haven't made a single argument here for making orthographical exceptions - your blathering about coppersmiths completely misses the point. If there is a "certain logic", you have failed to exemplify it.
And I would advise you to re-read WP:OR. I do not think it means what you think it means. Ilkali (talk) 09:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems that, among all contributors here, only one thinks it "utter nonsense" or "blathering" to postulate an orthographical distinction according as a word, identical in pronunciation, refers to an occupation or a person, to a god or to God. Lima (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You are (deliberately, I think) misrepresenting my position. There are three stances being taken here:
  1. The words in the above sentences are proper nouns and should be capitalised per standard English orthography.
  2. The words in the above sentences are common nouns and should be capitalised in an exception to standard English orthography.
  3. The words in the above sentences are common nouns and should be decapitalised per standard English orthography.
I take the third stance. You take the first. Others (including, I believe, PManderson) take the second. If it were proven to you that the words are in fact common nouns, would you take the second stance or the third? Ilkali (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
To repeat in a different form what I have said, "Allah is a god" fits a polytheistic context, and the statement "Allah is God", while out of place in a polytheistic context, is the correct one in the context that this discussion is about - see the title that you gave this section, into which you inserted your personal opinion that the word in question can be a common noun within that context. I think that your application here of the common noun/proper noun distinction is at best an over-simplification. Is "the Good Book" (used in reference to the Bible, not some other good book) a common noun or a proper noun? Is "the God of Israel" (used - as it is used in a monotheistic context - in reference to the One Supreme Being, not some tribal god) a common noun or a proper noun? In the monotheistic contexts in which English-speakers normally capitalize the word "God" (does it matter whether they do so on the basis of stance 1 or 2?), to make Wikipedia treat it as a lower-case common noun would be having Wikipedia accept original research. So you see I am only repeating myself. As, I think, are you. For my part, I will stop now. (But only after adding a thought that has just come to mind: the Soviet government outlawed capitalization of the Russian word for God; I suppose that by now secular newspapers in that language capitalize the word; I see that the Russian Wikipedia does capitalize it.) Lima (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
"To repeat in a different form what I have said, "Allah is a god" fits a polytheistic context". Does it entail polytheism? Is this 'fit' just stylistic (nobody's claiming there are many contexts where the sentence would likely be used), or is the sentence in some way incompatible with monotheism?
"Is "the God of Israel" (used - as it is used in a monotheistic context - in reference to the One Supreme Being, not some tribal god) a common noun or a proper noun?". The entire phrase is not a noun. The /gɒd/-word could be either a common or proper noun depending on what meaning was intended. Usually I'd think a proper noun interpretation would be more sensible. Even with a common noun interpretation, though, the meaning of the noun phrase in context would most likely be identical due to how people would interpret the definite article.
"In the monotheistic contexts in which English-speakers normally capitalize the word "God" (does it matter whether they do so on the basis of stance 1 or 2?)". (Yes, it does matter. Why didn't you answer my question?).
"to make Wikipedia treat it as a lower-case common noun would be having Wikipedia accept original research". You've said this before, and it doesn't make any more sense now than then. You have to support these kinds of claim, you know.
"For my part, I will stop now". You're a hit-and-run debater. You jump in to make some forceful assertions and then you disappear when called upon to justify them. That's not productive. Ilkali (talk) 08:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
No, Lima is merely tired of dealing with a bore, who has invented a "standard English orthography" to suit his prejudices. "Allah is God" is usage; "Allah is a god" is usage; "Allah is the God of Mohammed" is usage. No two of them have exactly the same force, and fiddling with the capitalization of any of them is mischief against the language. No amount of playing with the tokens of common and proper nouns will change this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
"No, Lima is merely tired of dealing with a bore, who has invented a "standard English orthography" to suit his prejudices". You ceaselessly alternate between repeating what I've said and making idiotic and uneducated claims about the language you claim to speak. I've already dealt with all of your arguments. Sniping at me here is childish and pathetic. Ilkali (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes: all these arguments are dealt with (elsewhere, of course) in my infallible collected works; no opinion of anyone who has not waded through them need be considered. (Was it Blavatsky who invented this rhetoric?) You have not convinced me (have you convinced anyone?); editors disagree with you; there is no consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Does anyone (besides, of course, the perpetually tedious Ilkali) actually now support a change of language in this guideline? Until someone says so, I intend to join Lima in ignoring him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)