Jump to content

User:SchreiberBike/Workspace/Universe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed text

[edit]

Based on discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of universe, I propose the text below as a request for comment.

Capitalization of universe - request for comment

Should the sentence at MOS:CELESTIALBODIES be changed

1. by adding "universe" so that the text reads:

The words universe, sun, earth, moon and solar system are capitalized (as proper names) when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body ...

or


2. by adding "but not universe" and removing "as proper names" as below:

The words sun, earth, moon and solar system are capitalized (as proper names but not universe) when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body ...

Discussion of proposed text

[edit]

Please discuss changes or alternative proposals for the wording of the RfC below.

  • I would word it: The words earth, sun, moon, solar system and universe, are capitalized (as proper names) when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body ...
✗ Not done because I want to change only the relevant word. Cleanup can come later after the discussion is over.
  • I would add another or because of many other style guides usage:
While the word earth should be capitalized when used in the context of other planets such as Venus and Jupiter, it should usually remain lower case. Sun, moon, solar system and universe should not be capitalized unless it the beginning of a sentence or part of a proper name.
✗ Not done to focus on universe.
  • Another important thing I just noticed about the Celestial Bodies section of MOS. In the paragraph below we have the following: "In the case of compounds with generic terms such as comet and galaxy (but not star or planet), follow the International Astronomical Union's recommended style and include the generic as part of the name and capitalize it." This is implies that the IAU is quite important here at Wikipedia as far as styling astronomical terms. That fine and dandy, however most other style guides do not capitalize the generic term. We might say, that's ok, we follow the IAU on this example. But the IAU tells us to capitalize Universe. So we follow it on some things but not others? That makes it confusing for new editors and readers when we try to explain why we do things and can lead to more RfC's and derision in the future, which I assume we are trying to avoid. In other words the whole Celestial Bodies section may need rewriting. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
But, Fyunck, the IAU Style Guide and the "old guide" you have previously cited don't mention capitalization of universe. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
My bad there, you are correct. They capitalize Solar System and fail to mention Universe in the actual guide. However their symposiums and articles do capitalize Universe. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That all may be, but I'd like to focus here on the possible text for an RfC about capitalization of universe. What do you think of the words in the box above? SchreiberBike talk 21:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
    Some in the RfC expressed dismay at inconsistency and feel that either they all get capitalized or none get capitalized. By not giving that choice it may limit how some may answer in your RfC. I for one have trouble separating and judging the terms one by one. Sort of like we are going to use Chicago's style guide for Earth, Nasa's style guide for Sun and Moon, and the IAU's style guide for Solar System and Universe. Kinda messy for my liking. But anyways, those are my thoughts on the issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I like your idea of a narrowly focused RfC on this. Two suggestions: Number the choices so that people have a handy and clear way to refer to the one they're supporting; ( Done) and include "Make no change to the current wording of the section" as a third choice (since some folks seem to be content with the MOS's not specifying what to do with universe, even though the result can be disputes at individual articles). Deor (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
    • No, the result would not be disputes at individual articles, the result would be capitalization of Universe because we would not be overriding the Wikiproject Astronomy decision, so "no change" is synonymous with "always capitalize". If you interpret differently, please bring it up on the original talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
✗ Not done as Peter said and because I desire to resolve the issue and don't want to leave it open.
  • Yes, there are other issues with the 'Celestial bodies' section and I agree with keeping this RfC focussed. My concern would be that this RfC was perceived as endorsing the whole sentence and not just the change to accommodate capitalisation (or otherwise) of 'universe'. It is apparent that the section has been subject to 'creep', which has had a significant collective effect. I would strongly recommend people having a look at the 2012 edit (when 'solar system' was introduced.
The words universe, sun, earth, moon and solar system are capitalized (as proper names) when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body ...
The first sentence option is fine but I would suggest the following alternative to the second as follows.
The words sun, earth, moon and solar system are capitalized (as proper names but not universe) when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body ...
 Done I like it.
I suggest that listing 'universe' as an exception parenthetically would be neater. The existing parenthetic statement is unnecessary (and incorrect). I suggest the sentence does not suffer by the deletion of 'as proper names' and to do so accommodates the insertion of 'but not universe'. Another alternative might be '(as proper names - but not universe)' but I don't think this is anywhere near as neat and is perhaps a little ambiguous or not as clear. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC) 02:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Notifications for the RfC

[edit]

Pages which should be notified

[edit]

Please add to the list below and discuss pages where the request for comment should be announced.


Please discuss pages which should be notified

I think most of those pages are not important, and, also, are read by editors that can already read Universe. I suggest that we need to be aware that the word "universe" is not just an astronomical entity, but overlaps into other "big picture" concepts", like cosmogony. I say this because I anticipate that it will be difficult, at times, to draw a tidy line for delineating what is an "astronomical" usage of the word "universe" and what is not. In my opinion alerting readers of Universe, Nature, Science will capture a most of the relevant scientists interested in whether or not to use the "U" in astronomical and related areas. We might also consider pinging some of the readers interested in, say, theology and philosophy. Maybe we can discuss what those pages are. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added a couple pages that I think encompass a broad audience. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Every page which "should be notified" should include every page where universe was changed to Universe in the last few weeks, but to find them all would take too long. Here's just a tiny sample where I suspect non-astronomy overlap: Talk:Aerospace_engineering Talk:Albert_Einstein Talk:Anthropic_principle Talk:Ex_nihilo Talk:Fine-tuned_Universe Talk:Giordano_Bruno Talk:Lee_Smolin Talk:Multiple_histories Talk:Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Model Talk:Roger_Penrose. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Setting up the RfC using this {{rfc|sci|style}} template will mean that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming will be notified. It costs nothing to notify, so we may as well follow all the suggestions. I've copied Peter's suggestions into the main list. SchreiberBike talk 18:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed text of the notification

[edit]

I propose the text below for the notifications on the pages agreed upon above:

Discussion of capitalization of universe

There is a request for comment about capitalization of the word universe at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of universe - request for comment. Please participate. ~~~~

Please critique or propose alternate wording.


Proposed headings for the RfC

[edit]

I propose the text below as subheadings:

Add "universe" to the sentence

(please add a "#" and your reasons followed by ~~~~)


Add "but not universe" and remove "as proper names"

(please add a "#" and your reasons followed by ~~~~)


Discussion and alternatives

Evidence supporting capitalization when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body

Evidence supporting lower case when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body (and in general)

Please critique or propose alternate subheadings.

  • In the second heading, you need to change "species names" to "universe". And you need to reword the parenthetical bits beneath the first two; the RfC doesn't involve a choice between "removing the sentence" and "keeping the sentence", as near as I can tell. Deor (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 Done thanks for catching my recycled proposal's leftovers.
  • ===Critique or alternatives===
Made this heading as suggestion. Please delete my text so it doesn't become clutter Cinderella157 (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
✗ Not done, but added "and alternatives" to "discussion".
  • Proposed headings for the RfC Not comfortable with "Evidence supporting lower case in general". As I understand it, the issue is whether or not to use caps in a specific context. Lowercase would otherwise be used as a matter of course. The context for the proposal to capitalise 'universe' is defined by the context of where the proposed amendment is to be made. Considering both of these:
Suggest replacing: "Evidence supporting capitalization in some contexts" with "Evidence supporting capitalization in the context indicated"
Suggest replacing "Evidence supporting lower case in general" with "Evidence opposing capitalization ... "
Cinderella157 (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done, sort of, changed the "supporting capitalization" one by adding the text of the sentence, but kept the other one stated in a positive form.

  • Proposed headings for the RfC Believe there needs to be a third option 'other'. Also, suggest putting 'Capitalization of universe' as if it were a heading (not repeated for each option. The yes option would then appear as: "Yes, add universe to the sentence". I suggest this be clearer. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
✗ Not done because I think "Discussion and alternatives" covers it.  Done, good - shorter headings are clearer.
  • On the talk page, @Dondervogel 2: has proposed changing the section headings from Evidence supporting ... to Arguments and evidence supporting ... I like the earlier language better, first because there is already the Discussion and alternatives heading where arguments can take place, second because I think evidence should be emphasized as a basis for discussion, and third that "Arguments", to my ear, has a more negative tone. What do others think? SchreiberBike talk 23:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Proposed headings for the RfC I acknowledge the reluctance to use 'oppose' or other negatives for the counter proposition even though I don't agree with the rationale. I do think that the present wording: "Arguments and evidence supporting lower case in general", isn't quite right. The wording makes it appear to be a substantially different proposition (in scope) rather than ostensibly a position that is the converse of "Arguments and evidence supporting capitalization when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body". Suggest then:
Arguments and evidence supporting lower case (in general) when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body
The use of "(in general)" is quite optional from my perspective and probably not necessary. I believe that the main thing is to make it clear that the two propositions have the same scope. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • How would you feel about:
Evidence supporting lower case when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body (and in general)?
If we don't mention "and in general" or something similar we are not addressing all other uses of universe. I think that may confuse people.
or going back to your earlier suggestion,
Evidence against capitalization
I prefer a positive statement, but too long is too long. SchreiberBike talk 04:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The long version I think (or the long version but saying 'against capitalisation'). Some might say that the RfC is narrowly defined in any case. I understand your point about positive language but also about length. Is the long version really any longer (significantly) than the first ('pro caps' statement)? With the long version, it is fairly clear that one statement is essentially the converse of the other. We all know what is going on but we are inviting wider participation that does not know all the ins and outs like we do. This is why I am suggesting being 'more precise' in the statements. Or:
"Evidence against capitalization in this context (or in general)"
"Evidence supporting lower case only in this context (or in general)"
I think that the context would then be clear by an explicit reference to the context in the first sentence. Cheers Cinderella157 (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I've gone with the long version. SchreiberBike talk 18:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


Proposed closing procedure

[edit]
  • The RfC will be closed 14 days after it is posted, or earlier if no !votes have been added for four days.
  • An uninvolved administrator will be asked to perform the close.

Please critique or provide alternate ideas.

  • Closing procedure believe this is unclear. Do you mean: "[Close after] 14 days have passed from when the RfC was posted; or, close earlier if no votes have been added to the RfC for four days". Or do you mean something different:" Close once no votes have been added for four days but do not close unit at least 14 days from when ..." Cinderella157 (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 Done see new language above.

Overall comments

[edit]

Thanks a bunch for all the feedback. I think this has promise. I've incorporated some of the suggestions above and rejected others with an explanation. I'm still open to persuasion though. SchreiberBike talk 04:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Think it is important to have an 'other' option for voting. People may support the principle but not the application. While it is a binary choice (to cap or not to cap), this is not exactly the question being asked (make this amendment or that amendment). I think it is important to acknowledge that a person may have a view on the primary question but disagree with how this is to be implemented - hence the 'other' option. The lack of this option caused problems before. See what others think? Cinderella157 (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC) 06:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I hope SchreiberBike will stick to a "this amendment or that amendment" choice, without extra options. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that this proposed RfC would go on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters as a new section. Can I suggest that it might be clearer for people if they could see a 'proof' draft of what would actually look like. Suggest using the talk page of this page for the mock-up. The final version could then be copied and pasted to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. I would expect that only you would make changes to the proof and that others would respect this, confining comments and suggestions to this page. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Good idea. If I do something like this again, I'll put the proposed language on the user page, and then all the discussion could go on the user talk page. Later today I'll do as you suggest and put a 'proof' on the talk page. SchreiberBike talk 19:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • While I agree with Fyunck in thinking that adding "universe" to the end of the list is more logical than at the beginning, this is a minor change, and I agree with the RfC wording either way. Good work to all who contributed, especially SchreiberBike. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Accepting the above pro-Universe question #1 would imply, I think: (1) It is a "celestial body"; (2) "the Universe contains more than the observable Universe" is correct (rejecting Marcelo Gleiser's scheme); (3) "our Universe is colliding with another Universe in the multiverse" is correct (rejecting Tetra quark's idea that if it's one universe in a multiverse it's lower case); (4) "the cosmic background radiation is a Universal phenomenon" is correct (this is implied by the idea that it's treated as a proper name). If SchreiberBike agrees that that's what's implied, then I agree that the wording is clear enough. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That is not how I was interpreting it, which I guess implies it can do with further clarification. Specifically, I would have inferred the following capitalization myself (accepting that the Universe is the celestial body in which we, all our neighnours, and all their neighbours' neighbours' neighbours live): (2) "the Universe contains more than the observable universe"; (3) "our universe is colliding with another universe in the Multiverse"; (4) "the cosmic background radiation is a universal phenomenon". That "universal" could also be capitalized, but then it would mean something different. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Dondervogel, reading this, am I to understand that you are also proposing to capitalize "Multiverse" in certain circumstances? What about "cosmos"? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Re "Multiverse", not so much proposing anything as using artistic licence to extrapolate. Re "cosmos", I don't fully understand its meaning and never use the word myself. I note though that the article Cosmos includes the sentence "Our particular cosmos, the observable universe, is generally capitalized as the Cosmos". Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Dondervogel, yes, it is true that somebody in the Cosmos page (I don't know whom) wrote that "Cosmos" should be capitalized. Are you suggesting that the content of the WP MOS be guided by what somebody wrote in WP? I would have thought it should be the other way around. But, okay, if we capitalize "Cosmos" when it is synonymous with "Universe", should we also capitalize either or both "Universe" and "Cosmos" when those words are used in contexts of old cosmogonies (old theories of the origin of the Universe, such as, maybe, the steady state theory). Should we capitalize those words when used in contexts of ancient cosmogonies, those that we now regard as myth (bearing in mind that someday our theories of the "Universe" may be similarly perceived)? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Re Cosmos article: No, we should definitely not be guided by what WP editors write. Instead we should be guided partly by convention outside Wikipedia and partly by consistency of style with the existing MOS. Those are the two criteria and the differences between us (by which I mean all editors involved in this debate), it seems to me, arise through the different weights we attach to each. Re outdated theories of the universe/Universe, I do not have a good answer, except to agree this is a grey area. There will always be such grey areas IMO. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Dondervogel, I agree, it is a gray area, and users of an MOS that recommends capitalization of "Universe" will wonder how to apply the recommendation. One might also wonder about "Chaos". Perhaps that should be capitalized too, when it is used in the context of cosmogonies? Of course, we could go on and on, and that is the point. Drawing a line and recommending that "Universe" should be capitalized is an arbitrary decision. We could, just as easily, include for capitalization "Multiverse", "Cosmos", "World" (in its most holistic meaning), "Chaos", etc. etc. Your thoughts? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Just as we have done with earth, sun, moon and solar system. A line was drawn somewhere amongst many competing ideas. I think it is much more cohesive that universe be included in that batch, whatever way the final outcome swings. Of course it is grey and that's why this discussion has been taking place. I think it likely that as long as universe is treated differently than it's compatriots we will from time to time have more Rfc's and more arguing about it's capitalization. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
(ec) @Isambard Kingdom I would think twice about capitalizing the other examples you give. My decision, having thought about it would then depend on whether one was speaking of the one and only Chaos, the one and only Multiverse, etc. But this (potential) RfC is about "universe", which I do not see as at all arbitrary. For me "Universe" is clear cut - the ultimate and indisputable proper noun. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
And, I suppose, "Multiverse", at least in some contexts. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps. I did capitalize it myself in the previous example, but I see it as less clear cut. It is rare that one thinks of one unique Multiverse, but more often many different hypothetical multiverses. At least that's how I see it. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Dondervogel, that's fine. I know where you stand, consistency among some important words. I invite you to visit Universe and consider how the proposed style would be implemented. Consider, especially the historical and philosophical sections. Just a suggestion. I've struggled to work with this page. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan:'s and @Dondervogel 2:'s differing interpretation above indicate that option 1 is not clear. I'd love to see proposals for how to write option 1 more clearly while still keeping the RfC focused. (It strikes me that the difficulty in identifying when universe is a proper noun, may be a reason why some prefer lower case.) SchreiberBike talk 01:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@SchreiberBike: Do you agree with Dondervogel 2's interpretations? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan: I do interpret it more like @Dondervogel 2: interprets it. The differing views make it clear to me just how slippery a concept proper noun is. SchreiberBike talk 03:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@SchreiberBike:I will be pointing out that if people choose #2 they don't have to puzzle out why e.g. the observable universe is not a specific celestial object, quoting this conversation. But that's for later. Thank you for your work and patience. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • How do people here feel about posting this to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters in the next 24 hours or so as an RfC? While it has problems, it still might be time to act. SchreiberBike talk 01:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Just do it! I think that we are now getting into what are nearly arguments for and against to the extent of the consequences of making this decision. Certainly, 'Universal' is a long bow to string. Does one say 'Earthly' or 'earthly'? You could include a statement of intent: "By this incluseion, 'Universe' would only be used for a reference to 'the Universe' which is all that is known and unknown, but not any other universe which might be theoretical, real or fictional." I think this is consistent with what the pro-capitalists are intending (largely). This is just a suggestion if you (and others) think that the issue needs to be more narrowly specified. Personally, I don't. If it gets up, then we can deal with the detail if necessary. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
    • The ambiguity is caused by saying "a specific celestial body" without specifying which one. The only way to make it unambiguous would be to state which one, but that would require a more extensive and complicated change. The fact is that we don't say which Earth we mean because we all know it is the Earth on which we live. The same holds for Solar System and Universe, in my opinion. On balance I agree with Cinderella157: Just do it. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Try then: "to refer to them as a specific celestial body". Cinderella157 (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
PS the arguement is that, as proper mames, they can only be capitalised in one specific context. If it is ambiguous, then perhaps the argument is flawed? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Lessons learned

[edit]

The RfC having failed to lead to any resolution, I'm documenting my thoughts about how process above could have gone better.

1. A clean current version of the proposed RfC should have been placed on this user page and the discussion should have taken place on the matching talk page. There would be links to the relevant sections of the talk page in parentheses on the user page. This would make it easier for people to see exactly what is being proposed while keeping the discussion focused.
2. The page above was open for discussion from 20:35 January 3 to 00:16 February 4, 2015 (UTC). That was just over three days. It had over 70 edits and seven people participated each making three or more edits. Maybe it should have been open longer.
3. All of the discussion of the the RfC took place above. It might have been better to discuss the wording of the question itself on the talk page where all the other discussion was taking place. The problem with that is that it would have been harder to separate the discussion of the wording from the wider questions.
4. It is debatable whether the RfC should have been narrowly focused or widened to include other words and there were people advocating both. I made the call to focus narrowly.
5. Perhaps when people started adding additional options, I should have pointed out that the additional options made the RfC less clear and that it might be better to address universe now and other issues later.

These are just my thoughts and I'm open to other interpretations or judgements.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  06:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the first question should have been "Do we want to change the current version." Maybe consensus would have been "No" to that simple query. It seems there were many that didn't want MOS to be so specific, and both the choices made it more so. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
In hindsight I think you are right, but I didn't see that then. Also in the earlier discussion it was clear that people disagreed strongly on what staying with the status quo meant, so "no change" left us in conflict. SchreiberBike | ⌨  14:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Would you mind numbering your points? Not certain what you mean by #1. I think the discussion was about right. It had pretty much dried up by the end of the time. The discussion framing the RfC was very open and the two dissenting views presenting alternatives were certainly aware of the discussion (one participated here and the other at MOS:CAPS in the new RfC section). A wider RfC would be hopeless. This one only became obfuscated by the attempt to introduce more permutations into the equation. When additional options were added, it was pointed out (more or less) that the additional options made the RfC less clear - so that was already done. The two options were worded with the intent that they represent converse options. I believe it is somewhat spurious to argue that they do not represent converse options. I find the admin's conclusions somewhat curious. If option one is not supported, then does the converse apply? The only thing I can think of would be to even more narrowly define the question.
Shall universe be capitalised when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body and be added to the first sentence of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Celestial bodies eg:
The words universe, sun, earth, moon and solar system are capitalized (as proper names) when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body ...
or
Universe shall not be capitalised in this context.
This is unambiguously(?) a binary choice. Citing the sentence including 'universe' as an example does not per se endorse the exiting sentence. A preamble might have focused the intent of the question. Everything looks clearer in hindsight. Do we now address the issue of 'solar system'? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that this is close to the right question to ask, and a binary or at most trinary choice (the possible third option being "The capitalization of "universe" should be decided on an article-by-article basis). It's not a wider RfC, it's a narrower one, which is an improvement. The only thing I'd change is that I would put off choosing the actual language to put in the MoS (and say explicitly in the RfC that that's what we're doing.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
What I was thinking for #1 above is that rather than mix the text of the proposed RfC and the discussion of the form of the RfC on one page, it might have been better to have something like User talk:SchreiberBike/Workspace/Universe all together and then discuss changes to it on a separate talk page.

Personally, it is hard for me to look at this without feeling defensive. Still I very much want to learn from it even if it went badly.

Similarly I don't feel excited about trying again.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  14:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

SchreiberBike, you did a good job and, once again, thanks. But you rightly realized you couldn't act as if you owned the thread, so you couldn't prevent it from becoming TLDR. I'm frustrated about the many articles where universe has been changed to Universe, and contemptuous about the pretending that saying "no change" is different from a pro-Universe victory, but a preamble wouldn't have helped -- the information was there, but ignored. So, is this defeat, or does someone have a plan to go on? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Peter Gulutzan that you did a good job. It is a shame the RfC was closed without selecting one of the two main choices. Either one would have been better than what we have now. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Ditto. Your efforts are appreciated and I do not think the outcome should be taken to heart. The intent of the RfC was very clearly about 'universe'; so, change or no change wasn't really the option. From the MOS: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Is this a defeat? I don't think that it is. Peter Gulutzan, there is certainly no consensus to support the changes that were made? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I disagree that either of those two choices would be better than what we have now as I thought they were poor choices from the getgo (as did many others). I felt like we were being purposely herded in a direction whether we wanted to go there or not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Cinderella157: Suppose I, or Xaxafrad who volunteered earlier, spend multiple hours reverting the changes. What hope is there that the reversions would stick? I concede that circumstances have changed since I wrote earlier -- the editor who made the most recent changes has today been blocked. But there is a consensus at Wiki Project Astronomy; we've seen how determined some of its members are; they're allowed to organize if disputes arise on talk pages (unlike non-project individuals who could be reprimanded for collusion); their group will be around indefinitely when we isolated editors go on to other problems; their blocked colleague could return. So how am I wrong to think resistance is futile without an official statement that overrides them? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Peter Gulutzan, perhaps just test the waters to force the issue or perhaps we progress to solar system. A clearer outcome on this could then be a step to specifying exclusions. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Cinderella157: okay, I tested by reverting a change to Albert Einstein. But it took me several minutes (after all the delay the reverting has to be manual), so I'm standing by my original conclusion. Incidentally administrator John wrote to the person who did that edit: "(you still have those thousand edits you were going to clean up where you changed "universe" to "Universe", remember?)" ... I think he exaggerates -- perhaps he counted the changes of solar system to Solar System and sun to Sun, etc., as well. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
(*adding this page to watchlist*) I saw a notification. To summarize my position/opinion: My personal feelings for how "universe" should be capitalized doesn't matter. What matters is how reputable, published source capitalize "universe." The fact that sources are inconsistent in this aspect, combined with the policyguideline/suggestion of avoiding unnecessary capitalization, therefore means that we should de-capitalize all instances of "universe" that are clear and unambiguous (i.e., outside of multiverse discussions). Is this the best interpretation of existing policypractice?
Alternately, if astronomy project members are allowed to organize in disputes with a free-pass from being called collusion, why not let them have the astronomy section of the MoS? I assume a peculiar handful of other projects share this elevated, collusion-free, status. Xaxafrad (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh my goodness no that is not existing policy. First off there is no wikipedia policy to avoid unnecessary capitalization. No policy at all that tells us what to do. There is a guideline that talks of it but also says to use common sense in applying it. There isn't even a guideline on use of the word universe or Universe so that is up to the astronomy project and consensus of the editors of each individual article. This is exactly the type of thing that the Astronomy Project is for (assuming the articles in question are astronomy related). Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
(edited previous comment) Sorry, without looking at the page, I only recall the "avoid..." phrase as being the third-ish sentence of the guideline page. Xaxafrad (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
@Xaxafrad No, that is not how I interpret present practice. What I see is the Astronomy project preferring to capitalize, and many other editors who also edit Universe and related articles preferring not to. The result is an inconsistent mess, with mixed capitalization in individual articles. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I take it as a given that Wikipedia should be consistent within articles, but I'm unsure of the importance of that same consistency being applied across articles. Personally, I would prefer horizontal consistency in addition to the vertical, but I think that's presently discouraged in policy (WP:BUREAU...I double-checked, this one really is a policy page). Xaxafrad (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
One thing though... Consistency within an article. That doesn't mean a word is only capitalized or only lowercase throughout an article. "Earth" will have both casings within an article yet be consistent in when it's capitalized. Same with sun, moon, solar system and universe. All will usually be lowercase within an article unless we're talking about Mars and the Earth circling our Sun, which is in the Universe that contains our Galaxy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
A process comment: I'm rather annoyed to find that there was a discussion here strategizing ways to make "universe" the Wikipedia-wide standard, without so much as a notification at WT:MOSCAPS (where the RfC had taken place) until I asked if there were any thoughts. It would be much better if the discussion about how to best frame the question and move towards consensus were done in such a way that involved editors could know about it. I'm not saying it was anyone's intent to hide the discussion, but that was the effect. There was a discussion at WT:AST about this (which achieved consensus but not unanimity quickly, though that consensus was over-interpreted by one editor, as we all know), but once the discussion moved to WT:MOSCAPS, there was no further substantive discussion or strategizing over there because doing so would be inappropriate. In fact, rather than strategizing, the response of at least one astronomy editor was to say he had made his opinion clear and was done with the never-ending discussion. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ashill: I agree that would be at least annoying. My intent here was not to strategize for either option, but was first to develop a strong and neutral RfC, and after the RfC failed, to discuss what went wrong. This was announced and discussed on the capitalization talk page. That is archived now at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 14#Potential fresh RfC and the RfC itself said "The text above, and the notifications and headings below were developed collaboratively at User:SchreiberBike/Workspace/Universe" immediately below the two options. I did not announce the "Lessons learned" discussion there because I was interested in how the process that I had managed had gone wrong, rather than any question of capitalization. The "Lessons learned" section is not intended to strategize for future a RfC. I'm a big believer in paying attention to process; let me know if that makes sense to you.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Each individual step here certainly makes sense, discussing the formation of a neutral RfC here was certainly appropriate (and appropriately-publicized), and discussing what didn't work seems appropriate, especially your first comment. Then each reply was in itself appropriate, but the cumulative effect was that the discussion moved into discussing how best to respond to the admin's closing comment; that discussion should have been (and now is) at WT:MOSCAPS. Though you didn't, other editors did (in the context of the discussion) move into strategizing a bit. I don't think there's any individual to blame here; I just want to raise the point that the process on this particular aspect of the discussion wound up being out of sight when it shouldn't have been. And I certainly don't think the issue (in hindsight) with the RfC was its neutrality. (I consider my objection raised, also in the spirit of reflection and learning from the experience, and closed.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
You know, I can absolutely see why Alex felt the way he did. This section was originally framed as more of musings about what went wrong and how not to have it happen in the future, and then went off track a bit to actually have strategizing about another try at it. Going back to more of a "lessons learned" frame of mind my own musings would probably be to have done this in steps. Of course I have the benefit of hindsight and seeing so many sources brought to light. Details would need to be discussed at MOS but first I would have laid out a summary of where sources tend to lie on the whole Celestial Bodies section, both generally and astronomically. Then I would have asked for a choice of do we want to change MOS or leave it as is. I would make sure editors realized that changing MOS could wind up eliminating words like sun and moon, adding words like galaxy and universe, or some combination therein.
If it was 50/50 or more for no change, we'd be done. If it looked like 70% wanted to change MOS we'd move on with another step. Maybe something like shall we just keep earth and remove the rest as a lot of general sources do, shall we add galaxy and universe for more uniformity as many astronomical sources do, or shall we go through it piecemeal discussing each term (old and new) to see where consensus lies on earth, moon, sun, solar system, galaxy and universe, plus capitalization of second terms such as in Halley's Comet, Andromeda Galaxy and Milky Way Galaxy. And then step by step after that. That would be more of a funneling effect on ideas rather than starting with an end result. Anyway, after going through the last RfC, and again having the benefit of hindsight, that's how I might start a new process if a new process is required. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to discuss plans for a future RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Try again for "Universe/universe" consensus? Some of the comments above might be helpful there.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  14:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SchreiberBike/Workspace/Universe&oldid=651338581"