Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

Bullet points

"In a list, if each item of the list is a complete sentence, then it should be capitalized like any other sentence. If the list items are sentence fragments, then capitalization should be consistent – sentence case should be applied to either all or none of the items. See WP:Manual of Style § Bulleted and numbered lists."

Can we please just amend this to "Capitalize the first sentence of a bullet point"? The Manual of Style already does this within itself, and besides, it is the convention taught in every K12 school when they first teach children to edit PowerPoint presentations. The same is true for the first word of a table cell. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm against this example of "instruction creep". There are cases where bullet points are used to set out a list that would not have capitals if written as continuous text. Leave it to editors. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    What he's proposing actually removes instruction (about what to do when items are not sentences), and sounds lame because who wouldn't cap the first and any subsequent sentence of anything? Dicklyon (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  1. Once the list is bulleted, by definition, it is no longer continuous text. Hence, it is already following a convention other than that of regular paragraphs (by being bulleted in the first place).
  2. What I am talking about is treating bullet points (or table cells) like sentences, in terms of capitalization but not necessarily punctuation. If you're ever taken a tutorial on PowerPoint, you know that this is an aesthetically positive convention. If a respective Article agrees (by consensus for that particular Article) to drop all aesthetics in favor of the bare minimums of grammatical correctness, than that decision would involve plain text only (with no tables or bullets whatsoever).
  3. There would be some exceptions where a capital letter changes the meaning (for example, PH is a phosphorous-hydrogen ion, whereas pH is the logarithm of the percentage of H+ ions released into solution). Even then, it is usually possible just to reframe the sentence or fragment so that a term such as "pH" isn't the first word. Still, I would be in favor of writing an exception specifically for such cases. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization in ice hockey lists

Is this correct? This user is always restoring the capitalization and I can not find anything at MOS:CAPS that would agree or disagree with his edits. Any thoughts would be appreciated. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

IMHO the very first sentence of MOS:CAPS applies: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization." The capitalization you refer to is surely unnecessary (and to my mind, meaningless). Perhaps it would be appropriate to engage with the other editor on its talk page (politely, of course). — Stanning (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Nowhere is title case used in articles. Not in section headers, tables, infoboxes, or even titles.Primergrey (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
The relevant link is to MOS:HEADCAPS. Primergrey (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Deity

I need some guidance on whether to capitalize the word "deity" when using the word in a conceptual (non-denominational) context. For example, would we write: "The Delta House fraternity requires that its members have a belief in Deity", or "The Delta House fraternity requires that its members have a belief in deity"? Blueboar (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

In a conceptual (non-denominational) context, with the indefinite article, "deity" is not capitalised. When referring to a specific deity, with the definite article, it normally is capitalised, as in "the Deity". IMHO your example sentence should read "The Delta House fraternity requires that its members have a belief in a deity." — Stanning (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick reply. I would agree that it should be lower case if we include an indefinite article, and upper case if we include a definite article. But what if we don't include any article at all?
(just to expand... the problem is that including an indefinite article - belief in a deity - carries the implication that Delta requires belief in some specific deity. For example, suppose they require belief in the Roman god Bacchus... it would be accurate to say "Delta requires a belief in a deity". This implication is avoided if we don't include any article - definite or indefinite - and say instead "belief in Deity/deity". The implication is that the required belief is open ended.) So which capitalization is correct when you don't include either a definite or indefinite article? Blueboar (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Unless the deity's name is "Deity", it needs an article of some sort preceding it; and no matter if it's a or the, it should be lowercase as per our convention on the word god. Primergrey (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
got it... thanks. Blueboar (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@Primergrey: Our convention on the word god is MOS:CAPS#Religion, which says: "Proper names and titles referencing deities are capitalized." Then follows a list of words, "God, Allah, Freyja, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Messiah." So when the word god is used as a title referencing a deity, it's capitalized, as in God or Allah (which means "the God"). When the word lord is used as a title referencing a deity, it's capitalized. And so on. It follows that when the word deity is used as a title referencing a deity, it's capitalized. — Stanning (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@Blueboar: I'm not sure what "belief in deity" means. Does it mean something different than "belief in a deity"? Either way, it's not capitalized in such a context. "Deity" would be capitalized only when the word used as a title referencing a specific deity, which would be identified in the context. I've only ever seen the word used in this way with the definite article, "the Deity". — Stanning (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Title casing on phrasal verbs (or supposed prepositions used as part of phrasal verbs)

After the recent moves per Talk:Bring On the Night (song) and Talk:Hand On the Torch, a central discussion is suggested by Martin. Therefore, I'm starting a central discussion here. How do we handle titles that presumably carry phrasal verbs or prepositions that look like part of phrasal verbs, like "Bring On" and "Hand On"? --George Ho (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

ALLCAPS for the wording on memorials

This has come up recently at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norwich War Memorial/archive1, where the argument is being presented that it is more important to stick with the sources (which apparently use all capitals) than to follow MOS:ALLCAPS. What do others think? John (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I think MOS:ALLCAPS is clear and covers such inscriptions – they should be in sentence case. The MoS is more than an ordinary guideline. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure, MOS is more than an ordinary guideline, but the MOS itself actually says that it is OK to make occasional exceptions and use common sense... so, we can leave it alone without "violating" the MOS. Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The exceptions are already listed. This is not one of them. Primergrey (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

But MOS:PMC says "In direct quotations, retain dialectal and archaic spellings, including capitalization ..." — Stanning (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree it's potentially confusing, but if you read on from there it says: "A quotation is not a facsimile, and in most cases it is not desirable to duplicate the original formatting. Formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment provided that doing so will not change or obscure meaning or intent of the text; this practice is universal among publishers. These are alterations which make no difference when the text is read aloud,... " John (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes. This is why articles on roads, stations, and pretty much anything else which is primarily identified by signage are not in all caps. Primergrey (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, so please go correct the existing articles where inscriptions are reproduced in caps. Here's one to start: Temperance Fountain (Washington, D.C.). — Stanning (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

"The MoS is more than an ordinary guideline". I disagree, every time it has been suggested that the MOS is policy there is no consensus. Every time that it is suggested that the MOS trumps WP:AT (which derives its rules from following the sources) there has been no consensus. IMHO the MOS is far too prescriptive to be taken as anything but a guideline, particularly because it is so large that it often breaches WP:Local consensus as there are not many eyes on large parts of it.

In this case the prohibition on USING CAPS IS BECAUSE THE USE OF CAPS IN NEWS GROUPS AND IN EMAILS, WAS INTERPRETED AS SHOUTING. Now it is so engrained in the interpretation of text in the electronic media, that many experienced internet users interpret it as shouting (and so feel uneasy) if things are in upper case.

"The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from" (attributed to various people). The MOS is so large and fuzzy, that one can emphasise the parts one thinks are pertinent to support a particular view (just as User:Stanning and User:John did above).

I think it depends on the context of the text. In the case of the article under discussion, if the editors before it was put up for FAC were content to keep the quote in CAPS, and they still want to do so after being advised of the content of MOS:PMC/MOS:ALLCAPS then I suggest leave well enough alone as the MOS is a guideline it is not policy. -- PBS (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

But I think that'll mean I oppose, which may mean they don't get the star. Seems a shame. --John (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:AT points to WP:NCCAPS for cap-related issues. NCCAPS is derived straight from MOSCAPS. Primergrey (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what you last statement meant to prove as NCCAPS is a guideline not policy, but in point of fact NCCAP is about three and a half years older than MOSCAPS:
-- PBS (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Is MOS:CAPS obsolete as a guideline?

Recent experience in RM discussions suggests that most editors don't care at all about caps guidance, and that those who care about caps are frequently OK with ignoring guidance and going with their preference to cap things that they think are important (which MOS:CAPS says is not what we do on WP). See for example closed RM at Talk:Cambrian Line#Requested move 4 March 2017 which was open for a month and ended up in a tie between a few who want to ignore the guideline and a few who want to follow it, in spite of overwhelming evidence that sources mostly don't cap line there; and open one at Talk:Penistone Line#Requested move 16 April 2017 which has attracted very little response. Should we just give it up, and say all names are OK to treat as proper names, even when sources clearly show that caps are not necessary? Dicklyon (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we need to scrap the guidance... it works as a good "rule of thumb" when editors are not sure whether to capitalize or not. The problems arise from treating guidance as "the rules", and trying to "enforce" what MOS:CAPS advises. I think we could do more to defer to project level (local) consensus... and be more willing to allow exceptions to our guidance. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
But what's the point of having guidelines if not to guide edits? Do we just allow IDONTLIKEIT exceptions to all guidelines? I thought we had guidelines that said that local consensus was a lower thing than guidelines, generally (WP:CONLEVEL). Yet we're seeing a local no-consensus mean to not allow MOS-based improvements. This seems broken. It's not "enforcement", but about what constitutes "improvement", I think. I always thought "enforcement" was a particularly lame concept invented by those who don't like to follow guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Blueboar. There's nothing wrong with MOS:CAPS: in fact it's very clear: "Proper names of specific places, persons, terms, etc. are capitalized in accordance with standard usage." It seems to me that the arguments in your cases don't challenge the validity of MOS:CAPS – essentially they're just disagreements about whether or not the names of railway lines are proper names. I don't think you're likely to get consensus on that. — Stanning (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
"Standard usage" is a bit vague, but MOS:CAPS starts with "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization." How does capping things that most sources don't fit with that? Not at all, I think, yet people argue to caps things they think ought to be treated as proper names, without serious evidence, and that carries because so few people care about guidelines, it seems. Reasons like a refuted "quick check of Google", or "capitalisation for clarity" in explicit opposition to guideline (by one who argues that "We should avoid any great number of moves until the MOS is sorted out"), or "those of us who use it" cap it, are just silly, unrelated to guidelines. If the guideline is being ignored and such arguments winning, what good is the guideline? Dicklyon (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Whatever the outcome of this discussion, I must agree that "standard usage" is vague. Too vague in my opinion, because how is it defined? If you find 100 blogs with incorrect capitalisation of something, does that override an official source? If so, why? There are lots of people out there who don't even understand typical MOS guidelines, let alone care about them. I think "standard usage" needs to be updated to something more easily defined and agreed upon, and I would say that an official source is the most important of all. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
It is not obsolete. Although you've shown that some people don't follow it, I expect that some silently do -- they just look at the guideline and accept it, without coming to the talk page to say they approve. And I think that accepting project-level consensus is a violation of the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
But if people won't speak up in support of guidelines, they don't do much good. Dicklyon (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Another weird recent case is at Cross-City Line, where the winning argument was "As a regular user of the line for the last 20+ years, I can assure you that Cross-City Line is the proper name of the line, and therefore needs caps per WP:NCCAPS." Evidence and guidelines be damned. If people like the guideline, why don't they speak up and defend it against such BS? Dicklyon (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The point of having a guideline is to provide objective criteria by which to make a decision in the first instance and by which, in the case of a disagreement arising, by which to assess weight in determining a consensus in the second. If objectivity is not the basis for decision making, then it does make a mockery of the whole process that is suppose to underpin WP. Furthermore, very few people understand the semantics of just what a proper noun is. Many believe that because one is refering to a particular thing, the reference used is a proper noun - but that ball is a particular thing. Then there is the circular arguement that because one chooses to use caitals, it must be a proper noun, therefore capitals must be used. A preponderance of sources is an acid test, not a definition. Furthermore, there is a skewing of results by labels or headings in title case and sources which tend to overcapitalise and are not representative of a general "population". One test of name is that it is not descriptive. Hence, XYZ line is not a name. Of course, English is a language of exceptions and a common noun phrase can enter into the collective consciousness and become a proper noun phrase - but for this to be the case, there must be evidence that this has occurred. I suggest that the burden of proof rests with the party claiming the exception to the rule - and frankly, the platform sign written in title case doesn't cut it. I suggest there are three alternatives: we either clarify the criteria in a generalist sense, learning from the issues that have arisen; continue with no change or adaptation; or, dissolve the guidelines - in which case, respectively, we will have less angst, continuing angst and anarchy ... Cinderella157 (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
What I see as leading to many disagreements on capitalisation is a misunderstanding of the semantics of what constitutes a proper name. Many believe that because they are using a noun phrase that has a particular referant, it is, ipso facto a proper name - and should be capitalised accordingly. They ignore other linguistic rules such as: the definite article, 'the', or a determiner, such as 'any' does not attach to a proper name or that a proper name is not descriptive and it is singular. There are exceptions to these rules (as indicated above) by which a common name can evolve into a proper name. There is also the misdirection that if a part of the noun phrase is capitalised, capitalisation extends to the rest of the noun phrase. An attributive noun (ie used in a descriptive way) which is derived from a proper name is capitalised when it appears in a common name noun phrase, ie Toyota cars.
The Watt's riots is perhaps an example where all of these rules are broken and the substantive case for capitalising 'riots' in the title was that it referred to particular events. I see a case that clearer guidance (perhaps as a footnote) could resolve many of the issues that arise, which are frequently a misunderstanding of the collective of these rules - focussing instead, only on there being a specific referant. If there is a proposition that a noun not satisfying these criteria is a proper name, then a proponent, if challenged, should then be able to provide a reasonable case as to how the name is reasonably an exception to these rules. This would likely refer to a preponderance of sources which are not skewed by a tendency to over-capitalise (such as specialist groups or government organisations). Such guidance is both generalist and provides an objective basis for decision making. It also learns from issues that have arisen in the past. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Since we're on about understanding of semantics: that's Watts riots, not Watt's riots; and as "riots" is plural, I guess it takes a plural verb. :-} 12:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd prefer the less angst approach, but I don't see much support for that. Take a look at the section above; we have very clear guidance in MOS:JOBTITLES, yet people freely ignore it, and advise others to do the same. Dicklyon (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Just a quick suggestion... if you really want to know if the broader community supports this guideline, you should ask at a broader community venue like the VIllage Pump. The editors who watch this page (and thus are likely to respond to a question posted here) are those who wrote the guidance (and thus, presumably, already support it). Any consensus here on this page will suffer from a degree of Confirmation bias. Blueboar (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
One odd thing about the current guidelines is that they seem to call for a composition title with "over" to have a lowercase, while an identical title with the antonynm "under" would have the word capitalized. It's especially noticeable when essentially every other published reference to a given title capitalizes the "over." --tronvillain (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Should stylistic capitalisation of the definite article in the title of an artistic work be respected?

There's a discussion going on on my User Talk page about whether or not the guidelines suggest respecting the capitalisation of the definite article when official sources do. It would be great to read some other points of view on this matter. User_talk:ThunderPeel2001#Capitalisation_of_.22the.22 Thanks. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding all the comments above: first, can we discuss our style guide?

Respectfully, I think folks are talking past each other a bit. I'm reading very different issues here and I would appreciate some clarification. On one hand, I'm seeing the frustration of editors who get rebuffed for observing the style guidelines, by editors who either don't know, or don't care, what those guidelines are. Or who attempt to carve out some particular exception(s) to them. While others seem to argue that the style guides are either vague or just moot and unenforceable as a matter of practice. While still others seem to be advocating for revising those guidelines in some manner. So I think we need to be clear on our objectives here. First and foremost, I think we should try to determine the validity and enforceability of the style guide itself, before we descend any further down the rabbit holes of individual guidelines.

Per MOS:MAIN, the style guide is "just" a guideline. Maybe it's time it gets an upgrade. But even as a guideline it says: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Which, frankly, in my view, is about as wishy washy as it gets. So, unless folks disagree, I would first like to focus on what level of importance and enforcement is vested within this guideline - and discuss if it deserves more. But first, let me put one thought into folks' heads: most major newspaper publications have style guides. They follow them as though they are style bibles. Many of us are familiar with the MLA, APA style guides, or the Chicago Manual of Style, etc., which are famous/infamous for their rigorous specificity. So if we are truly an encyclopedia, why do we even have a style guide, if adherence to it is so optional, voluntary and unenforceable? Can we possibly just start there? Thanks to all. X4n6 (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Style practices should not and will not ever be policies in the Wiki-sense of the word. There are no mechanisms in place to "deal" with editors that contribute in a style contrary to our house style. Nor should there be. What is disruptive, though, is when a change has been made which brings an article into line with our MOS which then gets reverted. Primergrey (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
If the community ever elected to make the MOS a policy, it certainly could. As mentioned, style guides are treated as policy virtually every place that has bothered to create one. That is not to suggest sanctions for violators, willful or not. But what is the value of a style guide that has no enforcement? And I completely agree with you regarding MOS corrections that get reverted. X4n6 (talk) 07:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I find it ironic that there is a proposal to promote this guideline to policy right after a thread that complains that too many editors ignore it. A Policy is supposed to have extremely strong community wide consensus ... and if this guideline is being routinely ignored, then it is obvious that it does not meet that criteria. Indeed, if enough people are ignoring it, then we need to question whether it enjoys a large enough consensus to remain a guideline, much less a policy. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you've misread the intent here, as there really is no "proposal" for anything. This is just a discussion. But your comment, while the the opposite of others on this page, makes an equally valid point. If people are routinely ignoring the guideline (and to insert what has been said) - without consequence - then should that guideline even be a guideline? And what's the purpose of a guideline which does not enjoy significant consensus? Perhaps even more to the point: If guidelines are routinely ignored, should we even have them? If so, why? Again, not stating an opinion or making a proposal. Just asking questions and soliciting feedback. X4n6 (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Guidelines getting ignored is a matter of course. Articles get created on non-notable subjects, articles get written like how-to guides, dates get linked, and non-logical quotations get used. IAR's real value is in the understanding that one does not need to know every p&g to create or edit an article. But when an article thus created gets deleted as non-notable, gets copyedited to read like an encyclopedia entry, gets dates de-linked, or has its quotes changed to our house style, that's when these guidelines need to be respected and to not do so is often seen as disruptive (also a guideline). Primergrey (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Since it appears that everyone has weighed in who wanted to, I suppose now we can try to form some consensus for fixing the problems we've identified. I didn't see a lot of support for tossing out the guidelines altogether; nor much for making them policy. But, in general terms, should guidelines have at least some measure of enforceability? And if not for all of them, should there at least be some measure of enforceability for the style guide itself? Before considering submitting that as an actual proposal, I'd really be interested in hearing pro & con. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 10:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, I would have to ask what you mean by "enforceability"? Blueboar (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
As has been mentioned, editors have become frustrated when edits invoking the style guide are reverted by folks who just don't care. So perhaps, a possible fix might be something as simple as creating a template and/or even a new guideline saying something like: "The style guide provides consensus-based guidance for editing articles on Wikipedia. Please do not revert style guide edits without prior discussion and consensus." Obviously, the mechanics of "enforcing" even policies here vary, but surely there is a solution that addresses the issue adequately, without being heavy-handed. X4n6 (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@X4n6: If you're demanding "enforceability", then you really must submit a proposal to make MOS:CAPS a policy. A policy is enforceable. A guideline is ... well, a guideline. It's not law. It's not enforceable. It doesn't say "you must do this, you must not that"; it says "this is recommended, that is not recommended".
But I think MOS-CAPS should remain a guideline, not policy. It can't cover rigidly all cases that may occur in real life in the complex English language as it is used in numerous countries. There has to be room for flexibility in edge cases. — Stanning (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
@Stanning: Again, no one is "demanding" anything. And we all know the process for submitting proposals. Currently, we're only identifying problems and discussing possible solutions. But at this stage, any action would be premature. Also, any individual action on my part would only come after support and consensus here. X4n6 (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
@X4n6: OK, then I withdraw my word "demanding". My own answer to your question above "should guidelines have at least some measure of enforceability?" is no, for the reasons that I gave already. — Stanning (talk) 09:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
@Stanning: Have any thoughts on the style guide itself and whether its current status needs review? Or if it's fine as just a paper tiger. Or on my offering above your first comment: about a new guideline regarding the style guide? X4n6 (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
@X4n6: Certainly not here in this subsection of the MOS by itself. The points you're making, if they're valid, should surely apply to the whole MOS, not just to MOS:CAPS. Perhaps you should take the discussion to WT:MOS?
Either Wikipedia is mature enough to have a mandatory MOS (that is, policy not guideline) or it isn't. I think that by now WP ought to be mature enough, but I also think that the ongoing arguments​discussions about the MOS show that it isn't.
Paper tiger? It's a guideline. So long as it remains a guideline, breaches must be dealt with by polite, reasoned persuasion. Perhaps by arbitration if there's a difference of opinion that results in edit-warring. Not by "enforcement".
By the way, there was a discussion earlier this month on WT:Notability on whether to turn the notability guideline into a policy. No consensus. — Stanning (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
@Stanning: This discussion has evolved organically, first from MOS:JOBTITLES, then MOS:CAPS, to all of MOS:. We've gotten various points of view, with no consensus. As you point out, there have also been other, parallel discussions on different facets of MOS, also resulting in no consensus. If nothing else, this discussion has clearly highlighted that we still have a lot of work to do. The only real consensus appears to be that we still have problems needing solutions. X4n6 (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
This meta discussion really belongs at WT:MOS. Nothing is going to happen at MOS:MAIN as a result of a discussion on the MOSCAPS talk page. But let's cut through the "things are not exactly as I would have made them, so I'm going to challenge all authority in hopes of getting what I want" chaff. First off, no one is going to take seriously a position that veers from "down with MoS, it's worthless" to "let's make MoS a policy" in the space of a few breaths. That's a sophomoric reductio ad absurdum. "If I can't just shoot it down, I'll pretend to support making it akin to holy writ, so there's a backlash against it." Transparent agitprop ploy, and a false-dichotomy fallacy.

Second, and more importantly: "...before we descend any further down the rabbit holes of individual guidelines": Um, no, but thanks for the condescending dismissal of others' interests and concerns. This talk page exists at all for discussion of improvement to the guideline (see WP:TALKPAGE and WP:NOT#FORUM), though it has evolved a side function of discussing article compliance with it, since there's not an MoS Noticeboard (nor a narrower MOSCAPS one). It does not at all exist as a vehicle for challenging the guideline's validity, much less having that being some "goal" to achieve before we use the talk page for its actual F'ing purpose. It really does come to pass that language usage shifts mean we need to revise some things. Capitalization of job titles has been shifting (very firmly, toward lower-case) in off-WP publishing over the last 1.5 to 2 decades. So, it's perfectly reasonable that this would be discussed on the MoS talk page about capitalization. It has also come to pass that not every phrase in the MoS pages was utterly perfect in the first form in which it was written. So, we have frequent discussions about individual guideline line-items' wording, as do all the other guideline and policy talk pages. If you find the ones here are uninteresting rabbit holes to you, move on to a page that gets your attention better; don't troll with potshots about how lame the discussion is to you. If someone wants to "challenge" WP guidelines' "validity" in another venue, see WP:Deletion policy#Editing and discussion and WP:Miscellany for deletion#Policies, guidelines and process pages – trying to get rid of a guideline one has a disagreement with, doesn't like, or doesn't feel is important, is considered disruptive. In the end, this may really just come down to WP:COMPETENCE: someone either is comforatble working in an environment where there are some constraints they may not have much personal control over and which don't suit all their personal preferences, or they're not.

Moving on: The first "enforcing MOS" and "ignorning MoS" fallacy is the supposition that you must read and follow MoS to edit here. It simply is not true. If you keep adding new material that isn't compliant, people may grouse at you a little, but we want new content much more than we want the content to be perfect on the first draft! MoS is primarily for WP:GNOMEs, as a cleanup checklist. The second reasoning flaw along these lines is a belief that the community is somehow powerless to put content into compliance with MoS and keep it there. It is not (though it often has higher priorities; much of this cleanup doesn't happen until GA or FA consideration). If, once you've been made aware of an MoS point (or any other guideline or policy matter), you go around and change existing content to be out of compliance with the guideline or policy, or interfere with other editors bringing it into compliance, you will eventually end up at WP:ANI or WP:AE for disruptive editing and have your editing privileges restricted if you don't stop. If you're clearly pursuing some kind of campaign of language "correction" advocacy, you may well get indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE to do encyclopedic work. Has happened before, will surely happen again. The supposition that people routinely {[em|defy}} the MoS (i.e. are aware of what it says, and editing against it on purpose) is false. That rapidly causes conflict with other editors, which ends up at noticeboards. I can count on my fingers the number of editors who declared such an intention; most of them are not here today, and those that are have given up that "insurrection" mindset.

That "we should try to determine the validity and enforceability of the style guide" is nonsensical on its face, in every way. There is no question of "validity", as a matter of the WP policy on consensus and on guidelines and policies. But even our policies are not laws and Wikipedia has no police force, so "enforcement" is conceptually wrongheaded (the only thing that term is used for is administrative enforcement of ArbCom decisions, which are directly modeled on legal mumbo-jumbo, and most of us avoid all that WP:DRAMA as much as possible); and actual legal matters like WP:COPYVIO. Analogies to newspapers who might fire you as a journalist for not absorbing their style guide are misplaced; we're all volunteers here, and MoS is not an employee manual. The aspects of a style manual that the community actually wants to be a policy not a guideline are already codified as such, at WT:Article titles (and there have been serious discussions of merging most or all of it back into MoS as a guideline). MoS's lead section says precisely what it's supposed to, and was arrived at after years of haggling. It is intended to be flexible (which is not "vague" or "wishy-washy"; it's absence of instruction creep). The more inflexible MoS gets the more people have shitfits about it (and the emphatic nature of its wording in many places was largely due to a single editor who has been indeffed, and whose "legislating" is slowly being undone). If anyone thinks the community is prepared to treat more style matters as actual policies, you are very badly misreading the signs. So is anyone who thinks the community is ready to scrap style and titles centralization and return the early 2000s with topical wikiprojects having fiefdom control over "their" topics; faith in wikiprojects as providing any value to Wikipedia at all is at an all-time low, and the community cracking down on territorial behavior (especially as the editorial pool condenses) is at an all-time high. All this "just a guideline" talk: See WP:PAG, in the section on guidelines. "Guideline" doesn't mean "I can ignore it just because I feel like it". Any time someone says "just a guideline" it means a) they have not read that policy, and b) they are looking for an excuse to do something against consensus. See also WP:NOTGETTINGIT.

"Folks are talking past each other". Not generally. People who don't want to accept that this community has rules (or policies and guidelines, or community norms and expectations arrived at by consensus, however you like to conceptualize this stuff) habitually talk past and try to talk over everyone who understands this stuff already. The I-can't-hear-you people seem to think that if they keep railing they'll eventually "win" through attrition, and don't change gears until they're either ejected as disruptive (see WP:Tendentious editing), or they absorb the community spirit and fully become part of it, instead of positioning themselves as WP:GREATWRONGS outsiders campaigning for change. Longer-term participants are rarely talking past each other.

"[People] who attempt to carve out some particular exception(s)" are the no. 1 problem when it comes to style, titles, disambiguation, categorization, and similar matters at wikipedia. Almost all strife that is "style"-related (to put it all under one label) is directly caused by them. This was true a decade ago and will be true a decade from now. Virtually everyone who arrives here is sure in their own mind what "correct" is with language usage; very few of them have the educational background to realize that the notion is an indefensible illusion, and that what they were taught by Mrs. Mortensen in seventh grade is only one subjective combination of a wide array of conflicting style choices, and was already obsolete when it was being taught. Most of them also come with "my favorite topic is magically special and your damned rules don't apply to it" sentiments, of which they must be slowly disabused. Even after they start to absorb all this, many take a very long time to fully understand that it is not MoS's (or AT policy's) job to present Truth about what is Best or Right or Ideal. An internal WP guideline or policy is not an article; people have a great deal of difficulty internalizing that in particular, and keep wanting MoS and other guidelines to have source citations in them, as if there's any such thing as a reliable independent source for WP coming to an internal consensus about how it wants to write. MoS is certainly is not an advocacy piece for how other publications should write. It is a checklist of how to do things, as an editor in this particular publication, to polish material with a minimum of reader confusion, and a minimum of editorial conflict over the same recurrent questions (and "recurrent" is a key word here – if it's not a style fight that keeps coming up, MoS doesn't touch it). MoS is the product of over a decade and a half of compromise to arrive at specific choices (sometimes necessarily arbitrary ones); consensus has most often arrived at a preference to leave choices up to editors when there's no encyclopedic reason for WP to have a preference either way (which is why MoS is tiny compared to New Hart's Rules or The Chicago Manual of Style). We've already been over virtually everything multiple times (odds are you will not be raising a new issue here). It will never please everyone on every point. And its operating mode is stability, not novelty, and not micromanagement. If someone thinks they're a damned supergenius who just happens to know better than over 15 years of the WP editorship combined, they have serious issues and we can't help them.

"[Some argue MoS is] just moot". Who does? I'd like to see this argument being presented, so I can refute it, which will be easy.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Consistency, concerning implementation of Job titles.

Just a comment. Sure wish some editors out there would be consistent concerning US state governors & lieutenant governors. Most of these articles have Governor of state in their intros, but a few editors change a tiny hand full of these article intros to governor of state. GoodDay (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Um... could we see an example, because according to the guideline "Joe Blow was the third Governor of Kansas" is correct... since "Governor of Kansas" is similar to "King of France" or "President of the United States". However, "After serving as Governor, Joe Blow retired and moved to Florida" would be incorrect. In other words, sometimes it is correct to capitalize. Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Rudy Perpich for example, @Wukai: just reverted my corrections there, I had to restore it. Another disagreement is/was at David Paterson with @X4n6:. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Wukai: just reverted me again at Al Quie and Wendell Anderson. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
As I've mentioned on your talk page, I don't think your narrow focus on US state governors is helpful. They get no special treatment under the style guide, or anywhere else on this project. The broader concern here is how this project addresses job titles generally - not individual titles specifically. X4n6 (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
WHY are you only decapitalizing on the David Paterson article, while ignoring all the other NY Governor bio articles? It's you who are super-focused on one article. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
You are consistently wrong. On all counts. X4n6 (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Overcapitalization of "vol." and "no."

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Overcapitalization of "vol." and "no.", which is also relevant to MOS:CAPS, but pertains to material in the main MOS page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Using plc (not PLC) after British company names

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Widely used abbreviation for public limited company

Someone recently changed MOS:ABBR to permit "plc", in imitation of the preference of particular companies. This appears to conflict with: a) MOS:CAPS on treatment of acronyms, b) WP:MOS on treatment of acronyms, c) the rest of MOS:ABBR on treatment of acronyms, and d) MOS:TM on not emulating trademark stylization.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLES

With regard to [1], what is the convention for American job titles, such as Secretary of the Interior? Should they be capitalized or not? DrKay (talk) 08:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You are correct. The word "secretary" is part of the full title, not a generic word. It's correct say "cabinet secretaries", but it's "Secretary of State" or such. oknazevad (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Per MOS:JOBTITLES, cap when attached to a name, or when used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, not when talking about the position. So Secretary of the Interior Zinke, but not Zinke is secretary of the interior. The current article title United States Secretary of the Interior seems to be wrong, since it's about the job, not the current holder. Dicklyon (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Certainly, the references at United States Secretary of the Interior to the "Secretary" appear to be a textbook violations of MOS:JOBTITLES by any interpretation, as "secretary" is a common noun and not, a standalone proper title. And per the above, I read the correct usage - depending on the context - as secretary of the Interior. As in "the district attorneys all met," not "the District Attorneys all met." X4n6 (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

See below, the inconsistency of decapitalization in the intros of some articles, are annoying. For example: US state governors. GoodDay (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm arguing that "Secretary of the Interior" is a proper name that should be capitalized, like Queen of the United Kingdom, President of the United States, or (the example given by the guideline) King of France. DrKay (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
"United States Secretary of the Interior" but without a country preceding or a name following, "secretary of the interior". Primergrey (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI, there is a related current ongoing discussion about capitalization of "mayor" in the titles of articles about lists of mayors/Mayors that can be found at Talk:List of mayors of Finsbury. According to another editor, most such lists in Category:Lists of mayors of places in England (and in its subcategory) currently use "Mayor" rather than "mayor". —BarrelProof (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion at Talk:List of mayors of Finsbury has been closed (as "not moved") and I have started a related discussion at Talk:List of Mayors of Bath. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks, BarrelProof. Care to weigh in at the RfC below? X4n6 (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the invitation. I think we should strive to have clear style guidelines and to follow them consistently, but that question looks difficult, so I may just allow others to decide what the guideline should say under those particular circumstances. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion at Talk:List of Mayors of Bath has been closed (as "moved all") and I have started a related discussion at Talk:List of Lord Mayors of Birmingham. One person has commented so far, who has opposed the move. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
make it two opposed. I am detecting a "crusade" to decapitalize these titles. Be aware that crusading is considered disruptive, and can result in blocks if it goes too far. Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I submitted one RM request, which was later agreed to have the support of Wikipedia consensus. I then submitted one more RM request that was consistent with that consensus. I also invited participation in RM discussions in comments on the relevant guideline Talk page (without advocating any particular outcome when making the invitation). What part of that behaviour seems like a disruptive crusade? —BarrelProof (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
For once, journalistic style guides actually give good general advice (about the only other time they do so for our context is on fast-moving things that academic style guides don't keep up with quickly enough, like pronouns and the transgendered). They're uniformly dropping the capitalization of "president" in reference to the president of the United States, except when it's before a name, used as a stand-in for the name of a specific individual, or when it's used in a formal reference to the role as a political institution (or some other related institution with a proper name, a source in the Executive Office of the President [of the United States] who demanded anonymity". If the president gets this treatment, so do lesser offices like secretary of state (but it's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson). You can have a meeting with a US senator, but a meeting with US Senator Tammy Baldwin. That meeting might take place in the office of a US senator from Wisconsin, while Baldwin was elected to an office, that of United States Senator for Wisconsin. If you come back in a decade, this usage may have shifted again. In my own lifetime, it's gone from rampant capitalization of all job titles all the time, to only government and military (and maybe senior management) ones with or without a name (ca. the 1980s), to the present style of avoiding capitalization except when necessary, which incidentally is the MOS:CAPS no. 1 rule. This downcasing trend has followed many similar ones; if you write something like "I was honored to be hired by the University", you are probably 55 or older (or are writing an internal memo following the institution's house style).

Our article title United States Secretary of the Interior is correct, because it's about the public office which is singular and has a proper name as such. Some other countries also have secretaries the interior (common noun). Using "Secretary of the Interior Zinke" or "Interior Secretary Zinke" is correct. But, "Ryan Zinke has very different priorities from those of the last several secretaries of the interior" (common noun). "What will Zinke does as secretary of the interior?" (generic job title/duties reference). "Despite political differences with him, I'm confident Zinke will not shame the office of the US Secretary of the Interior" (formal reference to a constitutional institution).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Capitalizing deaf

This came up briefly before, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 20#Use "Deaf" or "deaf"?. It has come up again at Talk:Empty Orchestra#Deaf. Can we be explicit about Wikipedia's style for capitalizing (or not) "Deaf"? Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the capitalization of "deaf" is more a political issue than a style one, and the right place to be looking is WP:NPOV, not the MoS. The capitalized version could reasonably be used as a descriptor for the self-aware sociopolitical movement, but I think that is all. --Trovatore (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Definitely "deaf" here. This is no different from capitalizing "Transgender" or "Gay" or "Atheist" or "Right Wing", etc., etc. It's marketing style, for a particular socio-political or demographic group without there being an actual proper name involved (as there is for ethnic groups, specific religions, particular political parties, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Consistency required among US governors & lieutenant governors

An example article David Paterson: Should we capitalize - "...served as the 55th Governor of New York" or decapitalize "...served as the 55th governor of New York". I noted that 'most' state governors & lieutenant governors use capitalization in their intros, but there are a tiny few that don't. Personally I don't have a preference, but would like consistency. Note: the US Presidents & Vice Presidents bios use capitalization in their respective intros. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Capitalise - (pinged by bot) Most sources I see capitalise the official positions and government departments, not only Governors, but also "Secretary of State", "State Department", and (in other countries), "Prime Minister", "Chief Minister", "Home Minister" etc. Uncapitalised terms look odd, and sometimes inhibit readability. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
look odd, miles from relevant. sometimes inhibit readability, when and to whom? Primergrey (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Lowercase (along with "Henry II, the king of England" and similar uses of titles not preceding personal names) in keeping with our general favoring of a down style. When I was working as a professional editor, the only exception to this was "Speaker of the House", as that term might be misread if not capped. Deor (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - This RfC comes from the same user who was responsible for the thread above: Consistency, concerning implementation of Job titles. and on this very same issue. The user apparently didn't like the responses given there, so now this. This user has also made it abundantly clear that he/she doesn't approve, recognize or adhere to the style guidance at either MOS:CAPS, MOS:JOBTITLES, or for that matter MOS:CONSISTENCY. Instead, the user has single-mindedly, and in my view, disruptively, pushed for some standard which, curiously, as stated in this RfC's title, should only apply to US state governors and lieutenant governors - or, even more curiously, only those officeholders for New York. The style guidelines are pretty clear, and obviously, no special carve-out for those specific officeholders is necessary. But because the user has found articles that do not properly adhere to those guidelines, the user now demands that even in cases where the guidelines are properly implemented, those be reverted to conform with the articles where the guidelines are not correctly applied. That's really all this is about - and it strikes me as WP:POINTy and a case of WP:IDHT and wastes everyone's time here. Oddly, the user complains about "consistency," while completely ignoring that MOS:CONSISTENCY itself, only calls for Consistency within articles - not within the entire project. It should also be pretty clear that any numbering prior to a job title is not part of the "correct formal title;" per JOBTITLES, so just as we would not capitalize "55 governors," we would not capitalize "55th governor," simply because "of New York" is included; because grammatically and contextually, the "of" is a preposition used as a function word. See example 6a But the bottomline is that if the user could point to any policy or guideline which supports, in any way, their odd notion - that properly formatted articles must be improperly formatted to conform with other articles which are improperly formatted - then the user has been unable to provide it. Obviously, because none exists. X4n6 (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
So, why haven't you decapitalized at Eliot Spitzer, Andrew Cuomo or any of the other NY governors? Why did you concentrate soley on just one (Paterson)? Furthermore, why haven't you decapitalized on all the US presidents & vice presidents bio intros. It appears that you are the one being inconsistent with your applications. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I just did. Per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, you should have. You also proved everything I said above. X4n6 (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Just those two, now? What about all the others? Why are you not applying what 'you' think is correct, evenly? Why aren't you doing the same for the US presidents & vice presidents? GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Same with the Massachusetts governors. You decapitalized at Deval Patrick's intro, but not at any of the others. Again, you're pushing inconsistencies. GoodDay (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
First you falsely complained that I was only fixing the David Paterson article. When that proved to be ridiculous, your new tactic now is that you seem to think you can dictate where I edit next? Enough with your nonsense. I fix mistakes where I see them. It's time you learned to do the same. X4n6 (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Please let's all focus on the question at hand. Primergrey (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
X4n6 would be correct, if it read that Deval Patrick served as the "71st Massachusetts governor". It reads however as "71st Governor of Massachusetts". JOBSTITLES supports my view on this. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Agree. Primergrey (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The same situation is occurring at Al Quie and Wendell Anderson. They are the only Minnesota governors, who continue to have their intro of #Governor of Minnesota decapitalized, while the others are left alone. For some reason, 2 or 3 editors are refusing to edit the entire series of articles & are thus creating inconsistencies. If we could get clarity here (at the MOS) as to what to do (capitalize or decapitalize), then I'd gladly make changes to all these bio articles, per consistency. According to JOBSTITLES, we capitalize - unless it would read as "Minnesota governor" & not "Governor of Minnesota". GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Note as well 'again'. In the intros of US presidents & vice presidents, we have "..45th President of the United States" at Donald Trump, not "..45th president of the United States". GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm for capping Foo of Fooland and I think the MOS supports that. Note, however, that I in no way support this extending to plurals in lists etc. Like List of foos of Fooland. Primergrey (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Primergrey, don't let yourself get suckered into this vortex. The notion that editors are "refusing to edit the entire series of articles" is so blatantly asinine that it deserves no response. But here's one anyway. GoodDay: either show where, in either policies or guidelines, editors are required to: "edit the entire series of articles," or apologize for the idiocy of that demand and stop being disruptive. Several editors have disagreed with you, both here and the threads above. And still you parrot the same tired and failed argument ad nauseum. You tax the limits of WP:AGF. This is textbook LISTEN behavior and it needs to stop now. Otherwise you'll find yourself parroting it on a noticeboard. X4n6 (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Generic function is obvious when the item is pluralised ("governors"), so that should be downcased. When it's a handle for a specifically named person ("Governor Trumpbump"), there's greater justification for the "G"—although if I were editing an article that used "g" in that string, I wouldn't bother upcasing it. Tony (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Which should be used though in the intro. It says (for example) "...served as the 54th governor of New York" at Eliot Spitzer's article, yet "...served as the 53rd Governor of New York" at George Pataki's intro. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Capitalize / Oppose I don't see a clear proposal here, or any reason given to change the existing standard. In the lede, it should be "the 55th Governor of New York" with the hyperlink. Elsewhere, references can be "governor of New York" if the sentence is referring to the role rather than the title. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
My apologies for lack of clarity: I'm just trying to figure out which way we go. Do capitalize (see intro at George Pataki) or do we 'not' capitalize (see intro at Eliot Spitzer). I've noticed for quite some time, editors have chosen both versions. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
If it's preceded by an ordinal the word "Governor" should be capitalized. The Spitzer page is incorrect. I'll wait a few hours for additional comment before fixing it. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
What precedes it is irrelevant. If it is the name of the office "Governer of Wherever" then cap it. When it's referring generically, "governers of Wherever", don't. This is what JOBTITLES says. Primergrey (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I've fixed Eliot Spitzer's article. @X4n6: should discuss here before making any more of these changes. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what to do. But see Al Quie & Wendell Anderson as 2 other examples of decapitalized. @Wukai: (who's yet to post here) prefer to decapitalize. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
My recommendation is to wait until User:X4n6 comments before doing any bulk changes. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Lowercase. Because Chicago Manual of Style. And because Wikipedia uses formal academic prose, not official political prose.
Civil titles. Much of the usage below is contradicted by the official literature typically generated by political offices, where capitalization of a title in any position is the norm. In formal academic prose, however, civil titles are capitalized only when used as part of the name...
the president; George Washington, first president of the United States; President Washington; Gloria Arroyo, president of the Philippines
I'd be happy to edit the US presidents' bios accordingly at the conclusion of this RfC. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I disagree, used in the lede sentence this falls under "When the correct formal title is treated as a proper name (e.g., King of France; it is correct to write Louis XVI was King of France but Louis XVI was the French king)". Power~enwiki (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
And that's a direct quote of the relevant part of JOBTITLES. Any other debate should be about changing the guideline itself. Primergrey (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Power~enwiki, thanks for waiting for me to weigh in before making or endorsing any bulk changes. But I also see that you changed Elliot Spitzer even though more editors are also now weighing in. Might you not have waited for a resolution here first? Just as I also see that, unfortunately, but not surprisingly, GoodDay has chosen to continue edit warring at Andrew Cuomo and David Paterson.
But Power~enwiki, as I've already discussed here, your quotation from MOS:JOBTITLES is correct. But I believe your interpretation is not. "Governor of New York" is the correct job title. But "55th Governor of New York" is not the correct job title. Yet editors hyperlink it as though it is. Just as "Governor of New York State" is not the correct job title. As other editors have pointed out, per the very first sentence of MOS:CAPS: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization." But again, it must be noted that this RfC is simply the latest effort by one user whose choice to willfully ignore the style guide, under the unsustainable claim of "consistency," has been met with considerable resistance elsewhere. Please see above at Consistency, concerning implementation of Job titles. The same user began this RfC by writing "Personally I don't have a preference," but still continues to edit war during this discussion, an obvious violation of WP:TALKDONTREVERT. But on a more constructive note, not only has Dervorguilla provided an additional, academic explanation that supports CAPS, JOBTITLES and the grammatical evidence for lowercase - since this is, after all, an encyclopedia - but this editor has also graciously offered to change all the US presidents' articles accordingly at the conclusion of this RfC. Since "consistency" is what this RfC proposer claimed to want, then that user should be thanking Dervorguilla for the incredibly gracious offer. X4n6 (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
If the hyperlinks are changed to "and the 55th governor of New York", your capitalization might be correct. There's no consistency at all among US governors right now and I'm not sure it's worth enforcing one at this level. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
@Power~enwiki and Primergrey: The JOBTITLES language is easy to misinterpret. I had to reread it a couple of times before I figured out that it actually does accord with Chicago. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
It's less a matter of interpreting and more about is it the (55th) Governer of New York or the 55th governer (who happens to be) of New York? That's the distinction and I've settled on the former. BTW, I'm no fan of rampant capping, but I see the MOS as pretty clear on this. Primergrey (talk) 02:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
"55th governor", not "55th Governor". Common nouns don't get capitalized. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia. We have hyperlinks for phrasing/parsing sentences, we don't need to rely on the vagaries of English grammar. 55th Governor of New York is undoubtedly correct. 55th governor of New York may also be correct. 55th governor of New York is obviously wrong. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I also don't see what is accomplished by splitting the hyperlinks here, regarding either caps or the MOS. Since the sentence structure remains the same. I hope you now see that it's awkward and doesn't really address the problem. X4n6 (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It has a style guide that should be followed. The lack of consistency among US governors is really irrelevant and a distraction. By definition, a project of this nature can never be uniformly accurate, per NOTFINISHED. We're also talking about a style guide that regularly gets ignored by users who don't know better. Also as has already been discussed above in Regarding all the comments above: first, can we discuss our style guide?, guidelines aren't policies. So I can forgive users who just don't know guidelines. But I do have less patience for long-term users who know the guidelines and willfully ignore them. And I'm not alone. As Primergrey said in the thread above: "What is disruptive, though, is when a change has been made which brings an article into line with our MOS which then gets reverted." Agreed. Also, why are you dismissing Dervorguilla's point? Or mine, based on grammar and sourced with English grammar websites? I get that everyone has a view. But not everyone's view is supported by reliable sources. X4n6 (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Question: I would think we should apply the same rules to "Governor" that we have for "King". The MOS already differentiates between the "King of France" and the "French king"... so shouldn't we similarly differentiate between the "Governor of New York" and "New York's governor"? Blueboar (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
We already do, per MOS. But how about the "55th King of England?" or the "55th king of England?" Or the "queens of England? or the "Queens of England?" What, in your view, does the MOS say to those? X4n6 (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I've checked through many other political bio articles & found that a vast majority use the capitalized version after an ordinal. I'm not declaring that they're correct, just that it's what's mostly adopted. Hopefully, when this Rfc is completed (mid-July) we can put in clearer examples on this MOS page, for what's required. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully sooner. See "45th President site:britannica.com", Google Search ("the 45th president of the United States"; "45th vice president of the United States"). (As ever, BRITANNICA RULES...) --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Why does anyone want the numerical ordering of US governors in the lede anyhow? Between duplicated office-holders ( Jerry Brown ) and territorial governors ( Richard Barnes Mason ), it's necessarily ambiguous. The only context where it isn't is when it refers to the specific honorary title, as would be used in United States order of precedence. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

It's the practice for American politician bio articles. Not to mention, the Australian prime ministers, New Zealand prime ministers & all the other Commonwealth prime ministers, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
In other words... it was done that way in one article, and copied without thought in a few other articles... thus becoming "ancient Wikipedia tradition" ... a practice that all articles must follow to be in conformity with the others. (And conformity rules). Blueboar (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll accept the results of this Rfc, whatever it is. I can't promise that the rest of the Wiki-community will likewise do so. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Sure, but who cares what they think. Our style gurus know what's best. (Sorry... that is meant as a joke... I'm feeling overly snarky today). Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
If everyone who cared enough to complain also cared enough to show up at MOS RFCs, they'd have a lot less to complain about. Mostly there are a just few folks who like to tell anyone who will listen about how they don't give two shits about style issues, all the while fighting an MOS-guided change to their favourite article(s). Primergrey (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

A re-write is required

Could we have a few examples of a re-write for this MoS, concerning the topic at hand? Clarification is the key, here. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

No MoS language yet, but a (partial) proposal. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

From:
David Duane Freudenthal (/ˈfriːdənθɑːl/;[1] born October 12, 1950) is an American attorney, economist, and politician who served as the 31st Governor of Wyoming from 2003 to 2011.
To:
David Duane Freudenthal (/ˈfriːdənθɑːl/;[1] 1950-living) was an American attorney, economist, and governor of Wyoming.
The phrasing is weak in that "was" cannot be changed to "is". Some way of noting that this is a living person is needed; WP:BLP is a strawman for that purpose.
The above consensus appears to be that "governor" should be lower-case in this usage as per the Chicago Manual of Style. "31st Governor of Wyoming" is information in the infobox. A proposal based off this may require discussion in a different forum. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The term "was", should be all right, as the DOD (or lack thereof) will show if the individual is living or not. PS- I agree, the majority of participants (so far) seem to prefer (example) - "31st governor of Wyoming". GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The capitalization of a word can depend on usage. In the infobox, "31st Governor of Wyoming" is correct. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
For sure, it remain capitalized in the infobox. Just curious about the intro. Many here, seem to want to de-capitalize, even after ordinals. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree. It might even be appropriate to lede with merely "Dave Freudenthal (1950-) was the 33rd governor of Wyoming" and put other careers in the second sentence. I think the reason the existing wording is awkward for capitalization is the phrase "who served as". Power~enwiki (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, the existing wording shows no 'ordinal' examples. The French monarch example is cool, but incomplete. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Off-topic, since we talk about MOS:CAPS here, but IMHO "1950-living" seems clumsy. Try:
David Duane Freudenthal (/ˈfriːdənθɑːl/;[1], born 1950) is an American former attorney, economist, and governor of Wyoming.
... since he presumably is (still) an American, but was the other things. — Stanning (talk) 08:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Stanning! Please, please everyone, no opening sentences for living people of the form "Soandso ... was a suchandsuch". I believe that "is...former" is the preferred form – isn't there something about that in WP:BLP or in MOS itself? Pelagic (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
"American former X" is ungrammatical. Age (or relative status, such as "former") always precedes nationality in adjectival order. Saying "former American attorney" is not saying he's a former American, as "American" in that string is not a noun, but an adjective modifying "attorney", as is "former". If he were an attorney who is no longer American, firstly, we'd state his current nationality, or, if he is now legally without nationality (as rare as that is), we'd hyphenate "former-American" as a single compound adjective. oknazevad (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Dave Freudenthal now reflects these changes. Is this a good model? Power~enwiki (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

What about the ordinals? We need clarity on what to do, when ordinals are used. GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I like the original version. It mentions "politician" as one of his careers (was there a period where he was a politician but wasn't governor? or not?), and including his term of office quickly orients the reader. The ordinal is less important for the first sentence and could be relegated to other locations. But if the American politics people feel strongly about retaining ordinals, then I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist. Governor was his most important role: short of splitting the sentence per Power~enwiki, then the end of the sentence is a strong position for that fact.

  • Dave Freudenthal (/ˈfriːdənθɑːl/; 1950–) is an American attorney, economist, and politician who served as governor of Wyoming from 2003 to 2011. [Note also where that link points.] Or,
  • Dave Freudenthal (/ˈfriːdənθɑːl/; 1950–) is an American attorney, former economist, and governor of Wyoming from 2003 to 2011.

Personally, "30th governor of Somewhere" makes me want to downcase the G even more (not just the "served as"). But if MOS says otherwise, or if the interpretation is being argued over, then ditching the ordinal could be an easier solution. Or are people inserting the ordinal just to retain uppercase?

Pelagic (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Disagree... "Governor of X" is a proper noun (like "King of France", or "President of the United States"), and so should be capitalized. The fact that we sometimes use that proper noun in the past tense does not change the fact that it is a proper noun. If (as the MOS indicates) we would write "Donald Trump is the current President of the United States" we would also write "Donald Trump is the 45th President of the United States"... and... "John Adams was the 2nd President of the United States"... the same holds for Ggovernors... "Joe Smith is the current Governor of Puddlewump" and "Jane Doe was the 13th Governor of Puddlewump". Blueboar (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
But yet you capitalized "Governor." You wrote "the same holds for Governors..." Why? You do know it's a common noun, right? X4n6 (talk) 06:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
OK... I agree that that one was an error (now corrected)... you got me. My point still stands. Blueboar (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
It's all very tricky in modern English! Consider "Utopia had 22 kings" – clearly lower case; the plural shows it's a common noun. "Mugstort was the 13th king to rule in Utopia" – clearly lower case again; "king" here isn't a title. "Mugstort was the 13th King/king of Utopia" – if this means he was the 13th of the kings of Utopia, i.e. is parsed as ((13th king) of Utopia), then lower case; if it means he was the 13th to hold the title "King of Utopia", i.e. is parsed as (13th (King of Utopia)), then upper case can be justified. Um... Peter coxhead (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, absolutely yes.... a lot does depend on context... and to show how complex this can be, consider the following statement:
  • "Obama was the third <president/President> to pay a formal state visit to the Queen."
If this statement is intended to mean that he was the third president of all the presidents in the world to visit the Queen, then the word "president" should indeed be lower case (as it is not being used in the context of a proper noun). If, on the other hand, it means that he was the third President of the United States to visit her, then the word "President" should be capitalized (as it is being used in the context of a proper noun... "President of the United States").
Now, before you jump on me... In a real article, I would probably re-write the statement to better clarify what is meant... but, I am trying to make a point... as written, the capitalization is actually crucial to conveying the context to the reader (if lower cased, the reader can assume that the context is "third of all the presidents in the world"... but if capitalized the reader can assume that the context is "third President of the United States". Blueboar (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Agree with both Peter coxhead and Blueboar – the brute imposition of lower case deprives the careful writer of considerable nuance. I don't consider myself a reactionary or a traditionalist grammarian, but the philistine trend, within Wikipedia and elsewhere, of proscribing the long-established usage of capital letters to indicate the particular rather than the general is regrettable. I'm still smarting over MOS:COMMONNAMECAPS, whereby we can no longer distinguish between common gulls and Common Gulls, with no compensatory gain that I can see. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Dave.Dunford: well, I was on the losing side of the long and hard-fought battles over the capitalization of the English names of species, so I agree with you. However, like it or not, maximum de-capitalization is both the trend in the real world and the consensus here. So to achieve clarity we have to be vigilant and re-word sentences where capitals would have made a distinction but are ambiguous or unclear without them. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I think more is needed than just those examples... So much depends on specific context. For example:
  • "In the funeral procession were may European kings, and it was decided that they should march in order of precedence. Since Foobaria was the third oldest kingdom in Europe, Gustav XVII (the 32nd King of Foobaria) was the 3rd king of Europe to march in the procession. subsequently, after the conquest of Muggleland by the Untited States), Foobaria became second in seniority, and so subsequent Kings of Foobaria have marched 2nd in processions. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I put up 2 potential ordinal amendments, concerning US governors & lieutenant governors, which tend to use ordinals per chronological service reason. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Made a slight change to the potential ordinal amendments. I used US presidential examples, rather then state gubernatorial examples. American presidents would be more recognizable, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

This Rfc will be closing in a few days. Are we going to have clarity on this issue or not? GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: I believe we do have clarity, if not unanimity. But it seems clear that most, but not all, people favor the lowercase usage. For a multitude of reasons. All articulated above. X4n6 (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll use the Barack Obama article, as an example on this MOS page. As far a American political articles go, decapitalizing state governors & lieutenant governors in the bio intros will likely be easy. Doing so for the US presidential & vice presidential bio intros, not so much. GoodDay (talk) 02:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's premature to add anything to the MOS without clear community consensus first. So you should remove your "proposed amendments" and wait to discuss them here. But also, and most importantly, the outcome of this RfC alone does not carry sufficient weight to justify unilaterally rewriting any MOS guidelines. X4n6 (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Do you know another forum that will get a larger participation of the community? GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with other editors who have written above - rather emphatically in some cases - that talk pages are not the appropriate forums for guideline and/or policy changes. Perhaps you might review their comments for guidance, then proceed accordingly. X4n6 (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
If nothing is added to this MOS for clarification. Then, I'll move towards de-capitalizing the US state govs & lt govs bio articles intros. If nobody reverts me, then the changes are accepted. If I do get reverted? I'll direct the reverters right to this talkpage. We can't have inconsistency. GoodDay (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Per above, I've removed the proposed amendments from the article. Once consensus is established in the appropriate forum, you're certainly free to restore them. Regarding your de-cap concerns, why stop at state governors and lt. governors? All titles apply. So if you're going to make that your project, you can include mayors, senators, representatives, cabinet members, dukes, earls, bishops, cardinals, etc. As I've said from the beginning, no jobs get special/preferential treatment here. No job has a special guideline just for it, nor is one ever likely to get one. But if consistency is such a concern for you, on a project of this size and scope? Well, good luck with that. X4n6 (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be a fairly common [mis?]perception that some class of titles are treated differently (especially but not exclusively heads of state). I think this is an illusion/confusion, created by mistaking any reference to a political or similar office or officeholder for a proper-name reference to the office in a formal way. It's closely related to the confusion between the City of Oakland as a legal entity and someone living in the city of Oakland, a place. No one actually lives in the City of Oakland; if you tried to move into their offices you'd be ejected as a trespasser. Similarly, Trump is a US president. More legally speaking, he was elected to the office of President of the United States. We only need to capitalize President when we're drawing a formal or semantically necessary distinction between that presidency and other presidencies of other entities than the United States (and it is definitely not always semantically necessary; it's perfectly clear that Trump is the most controversial US president in history and that he's been the president of some corporations, without spelling out "President of the United States", and sure as hell not spelling out "President of [insert company name here]" one after another. See also the above "Obama was the third President to visit the Queen"; those capitalized terms are understood stand-ins for two formal designations, the President of the United States of America, and Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom [eliding the rest of the long version of her title], respectively. It doesn't mean he was the third president of anywhere to visit her, nor the third US president to visit a queen, or a British queen, or that Obama visited any other British queen than that specific one (yes, some of that's absurd – unless you're 7 years old and not from the US or the Commonwealth and don't yet know anything about presidents and queens). Using lower-case for either in the construction would be ambiguous. There's nothing ambiguous, by contrast, about "Foo McBar, while still the lieutenant governor of the state of Franklin, was involved in a gambling scandal", or whatever. (Note also lack of any necessity to capitalize "State" in that sentence; I can't tell you how many times I've encountered "the State of Georgia" or "the US State of Georgia" on Wikipedia; the former is especially pointless, since to anyone but an American it appears to be using "Capitalization to Emphasize" sovereign statehood, and referring to the nation of Georgia.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
But the question again is -- What's correct? Donald Trump is the 45th President of the United States? or Donald Trump is the 45th president of the United States? GoodDay (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"Correct" is never the question or the answer here, since it always comes back to "according to whom?", and to the inability of the average person to separate objective fact from closely held subjective opinion that "feels true" to them because of how long it's lived among their set of assumptions, especially if they have a pet style guide in their pocket and refuse to engage with the clear fact that style guides differ, and they are not all appropriate for an encyclopedic register, or all pertinent in 2017.

The question is: What best serves our readers and, secondarily, our editors? We look at style guides and other evidence of usage (and shifts therein) when answering this, but in the end we come to an internal Wikipedia consensus decision about what's best for our publication's context and audience, whether or not it agrees with average usage, or academic usage, or whatever perspective participants are bringing. And we err on the side of writing for the common person; it is worth slightly and momentarily irritating one expert who would prefer a more jargonistic usage, if we make the material clearer for a dozen non-experts. Or even two of them.

Avoidance of overcapitalization generally fits both of these reader- and editor-facing criteria. It makes text easier to read, distinguishes clearly between proper nouns and common nouns (and adjectives derived therefrom), avoids PoV-pushing abuse of style for aggrandizement, and doesn't wrongly imply to readers-cum-new-editors that "capitalize important stuff" is Wikipedia style. It also discourages the "me too" habit of more established editors who are professional or fandom specialists in Topic A demanding "special treatment" on style that they think they see for Topic B. "Our topic is special and has its own magical rules" thinking is the #1 cause of style-related strife at Wikipedia, mostly predicated on the absurd but often unconscious belief that the sources most reliable for facts specific to a topic are somehow also the most reliable on how to write English about the topic for a general audience. (This is the specialized-style fallacy or SSF.) It's difficult to overestimate the value of preventing outbursts of SSF behavior, because some of those sorts of disputes have lasted for years and wasted hundreds if not thousands of combined editorial hours on trivia. The "job titles in my field must be capitalized by convention" pseudo-rule is one of the most frequent, and was one of the specialized-style fallacies that inspired that essay to begin with.

I'm thus inclined to support always using lower-case for job titles (in the broadest sense), except when doing so produces an ambiguity that may confuse readers. Maybe that right there is the gist of what the rule should be, with most of the rest being examples and cases.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Avoiding ambiguity within a bio article, would require us to capitalize. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Some of the above thread appears to be digressing into matters better discussed at WT:MOSLEAD; MOSCAPS isn't about general cleanup of lead sections. For the on-topic part: In general, I agree we need to be clearer on this, in various ways, but it's damned hard to write the perfect version. I would suggest starting (in a new section) with an outline of points; use a list format. We can build prose out of that after the points are clear.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

There's not a clear consensus, but my sense is that "governor" should generally be lower-case in prose; there's no consensus as to how the hyper-links should be with that usage (but I personally have strong opinions). I wouldn't suggest anyone de-capitalize "President" (of the United States) based on this thread, though. I agree that the other lede suggestions on US politicians probably should go to WT:MOSLEAD before becoming consensus. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

"Official" in MOS:ISMCAPS; paganism

The officially and official in this section have no apparent concrete meaning, and are in fact misleading, and thus should either be removed or replaced: "Names of organized religions (as well as officially recognized sects), whether as a noun or an adjective, and their adherents start with a capital letter. Unofficial movements, ideologies or philosophies within religions are generally not capitalized unless derived from a proper name. For example, Islam, Christianity, Catholic, Pentecostal and Calvinist are capitalized, while evangelicalism and fundamentalism are not."

The advice is simply wrong. All kinds of heretical (very, very "unofficial") Christian sects of antiquity to early modernity are proper names and are capitalized. So are new religious/spiritual movements that are specific organizations or doctrinal traditions (Rosicrucianism, Asatru) and not just generalized labels (paganism, neo-druidry).

Speaking of which, we need to reign in the rampant overcapitalization in paganism-related articles (Modern Paganism, etc.). The problem is getting quite severe (see, e.g., the text of Heathenry (new religious movement), which awkwardly capitalizes almost every word connected in some way to paganism, even adjectival uses). It sometimes cannot be resolved at RM because of meatpuppetry and closers who ignore guidelines and policy and just count "votes" (RM wouldn't fix the overcapping in the text, anyway). Adding a few paganism examples would probably resolve the matter in the long run.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I have said this before, but it is worth saying again... if a particular part of our MOS guidance is being routinely ignored, we should question whether that guidance actually reflects broad community consensus, and should consider changing our MOS to better reflect actual practice. Blueboar (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
If it is being routinely ignored site-wide then I agree, but one particular topic should not be excepted without an exceptional reason. Primergrey (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
That, and more to the point on this particular matter, it's being ignored by neo-pagans specifically as a promotional mechanism. We don't tolerate that for method acting or progressivism, or any other -ism, religious, political, or otherwise.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • While officially and official aren't right, simply removing them won't solve the problem and certainly won't provide an objective way to decide on capitalization in an article like Modern Paganism, which (as one with more tolerance of capitals than SMcC) I agree is rampantly over-capitalized. Why exactly is "Rosicrucianism" a specific organization or doctrinal tradition whereas "neo-druidry" is not? Can this be set out in a way that is neutral among different religious movements? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    The short answer is "follow the independent sources". Sources on Rosicrucianism (not written by its followers) treat it as a proper name. This is not true of most pagan-connected things that are not specific actual organizations with named founders; the more general terms are only consistently capitalized by adherents. The long answer (and which has much to do with the "official" issue) is that the sources, and we, are treating as proper names things that have certain histories, with a particular founder or founders, and an organizational structure of some kind (e.g. a church system, orders, centrally published doctrine, etc.), and a cohesive identity; if it's a diffuse thing without any hierarchy beyond the local level, it's just a social movement, philosophy, blanket term for several religiousn, or other non-proper-noun thing, like animism, synchretic Christianity, shamanism, etc. Neo-druidry, in particular, is an idea started up independently and very differently by numerous people from the 18th century to now, in Britain, in the US, and elsewhere, without there being any connection much less continuity between them. Same goes for modern witchcraft movements, etc. Various proper-name things like most of the classical heresies had the history and structure (Nestorian Schism, etc.) – like neo-druidic organizations the United Ancient Order of Druids and Ár nDraíocht Féin, which are proper names. But their doctrines are not proper names, being diffuse things (dyophysitism, etc.) – like paganism or neo-druidry. I've been surrounded by neo-pagans my whole adult life, and they are not consistent on style [or beliefs], veering wildly from mega-capitalization ("a Sky Ritual for Cleansing") to not capitalizing much beyond deity names. Published pagan writers lean toward the capitalization-spree side.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
    This makes sense to me, and "follow independent sources" can usefully be added to the MoS. Beyond that, although I'm sure you're right that specificity versus diffuseness or generality is a key component in deciding on capitalization, I suspect it's too abstract and too complex a distinction to work well in a manual of style, where it would need to be reduced to a couple of sentences at most. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
    Yeah, I'm not really sure how to formulate that into a one-liner.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Capitalizing "Endangered" (again)

This perennial is back. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Formatting issue 1 - IUCN status. We address IUCN endangerment labels in examples at MOS:QUOTE, under "Typographic conformity", but we should consider adding it explicitly to MOS:CAPS, perhaps as an example under MOS:ISMCAPS. It's typical "our organization Capitalizes Stuff Important to or About Us Because We're Special" thinking (i.e., it's business/marketing writing style). It should probably go in the "Philosophies, theories, movements, doctrines, methods, processes, systems of thought and practice, and fields of study" material, as a new add-on to that list, perhaps "categorizations" or "categorizing labels".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you really not see the (useful) distinction between "endangered" (vague, non-specific meaning, could be applied to species in several of the IUCN categories) and "Endangered" (specific meaning as defined by the IUCN, and only applicable to species in that one category)? There's a whole area of nuance to the usage of capital letters that you seem to be overlooking (it's not just "proper nouns" vs "not proper nouns", or "house style"). You're throwing away a very useful piece of long-established usage in your lower-casing zeal. --Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Whether the IUCN's classification terminology should be capitalized or not is nothing to do with our organization Capitalizes Stuff Important to or About Us Because We're Special, and it's misleading to say that it is. Rather it's one possible way of clarifying that a phrase that can be used generally is instead being used in a limited and more specific sense. The English Wikipedia is perfectly free to choose not to use capitalization for this purpose (as it has decided for the English names of organisms), but there's a price to be paid, namely a greater need for care in writing to make sure the distinction the capitals would have made is always clear. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. Good prose can accomplish the necessary disambiguation in running text. Primergrey (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
And the WP norm (which we did not invent, but took from all the major style guides) is to use italics, not overcapitalization, to mark terms of art when this is seen as contextually necessary.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to see some evidence for this claim. I've never known italics to be used in this way. Dave.Dunford (talk)
@Peter coxhead: A problem I see with use-style-to-disambiguate argument is that IUCN has no monopoly on "Endangered"; just in Googling usage for the other, longer discussion (from which we shouldn't fork very far), I saw numerous cases of "listed as Endangered by the IUCN and [insert other organizations here]". So, the capitalizing would not serve the desired disambiguating purpose anyway.

What we're already doing and should continue doing is being specific. "This species is endangered" (or "... Endangered" for that matter) is a meaningless assertion without the according to whom part included, which will be linked. Sometimes in what range or jurisdiction must be included as well. There just isn't a confusion potential that can't be easily written around. I've been dealing with this exact sort of wording in felid and caudate articles, and it's just not a difficult thing to detect and resolve. Sometimes it really matters to do so, regardless of the ease of doing it. E.g. the barred tiger salamander, Ambystoma mavortium, has been labeled critically endangered in California (by the state), and you can actually go to prison for collecting or killing them. In reality, the species is quite common all the way up into Canada (including the subspecies in question, the most common among them), while the population of them as far south as California is simply small (and not declining any faster that general amphibian populations, probably less so because of conservation efforts). It would be seriously reader-misleading to just say "The salamander is critically endangered.<ref>[citation to State of California document here]</ref>" and leave it at that, or even to say that the State of California says it is; the "in California" part has to be in there.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

"You're throwing away a very useful piece of long-established usage": There are obvious alternatives (linking, plus – if really thought necessary – italics) that we've successfully been using for years to get away from specialists in every field trying to capitalize everything here. The "Endangered" style is not useful here, because of that "everyone wants it for their terms" problem – it really does account for the vast majority of time spent debating capitalization on WP. We genuinely have been over it all before many times, and nothing new is raised by the IUCN case (which itself is rehash). Emphasis-capping is not being flippantly "thrown away", it's being studiously avoided for well-established reasons. Emphasis-caps is only a useful style in material written by specialists for specialists in the same speciality all of whom agree what the terms are that receive this emphasis-capping and what that emphasis exactly signifies. That, in a nutshell, is why the eight-year campaign to force capitalization of vernacular names of species here failed; the style just confuses lay readers, is not used in every biological specialty, and is not even done consistently within the same one. It just a house style of particular organizations and journal publishers, whether people want to admit it or not.

There are hundreds if not thousands of limited-context "useful" style quirks that MoS "throws away", out of the necessity to produce a consistent, massive reference work understandable by a global and varied audience without either shooting an academic jargon firehose at them or completely dumbing things down. Plus the secondary necessity to prevent editors from circularly fighting about the same trivia day after day, article by article: end an interminable dispute with a rule, even if it seems arbitrary [it usually is not], and get back to the productive work. It has nothing to do with "zealotry", but getting stuff done without people tearing each other's head off, or turning articles into confusing battlefields in front of our readers. If that comes at the cost of "darn, I don't get to write exactly the same way here as I would on my own blog", that's a tiny, tiny price to pay.

The fact that the IUCN examples are not being treated by some editors as a rule but as noise to ignore suggests it needs to be moved into a rule or people will continue to system-game and wiki-lawyer about it. It could be done here, or at MOS:LIFE (or both).
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: We're going to have to agree to disagree. The fact that you refer to it as "emphasis-capping" shows that you're still missing the point, however interminable the debate. As for the "eight-year campaign to force capitalization of vernacular names of species", and as much as I don't want to refight old battles: please tell me a) what we've gained by the proscription of capital letters and b) how I can now elegantly and succinctly distinguish between a common gull and a Common Gull without adding verbiage. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Not missing the point, but countering it with a different one. To spell it out: The distinction you are trying to draw between marketing-style emphasis capitalization and "Critically Endangered"-style capitalization as a form of signification/disambiguation, is not a distinction MoS recognizes or is going to recognize, because the end effect on the reader is the same. They are both forms of emphasis, for different rationales (and there are many others we have to deal with, like desire to capitalize job titles, political philosophies, business methods/practices, etc., etc., etc.), using the same method. We don't want editors to do the first one at all, for any reason (MOS:TM is largely a lesson in "do not stylize in any way in a marketing/promotional manner"). For the latter, use clear wording, linking, source citations, or (if really thought necessary) italics.
To answer your questions:

A) 1) We got an end to years of intense internecine bickering over this particular matter, which was devolving to increasingly worse disruptive behavior which need not be detailed here. 2) We got an end to years of fallout bickering and disruption, caused by people trying to impose "bird style" on other organisms, and worse yet to impose it on other things, mistaking Caps Means Important as Wikipedia style. 3) We got an end to disruptive attempts to WP:POVFORK multiple guidelines into some kind of crazy "battle lines" situation. 4) We got an end to recurrent WP:RM conflicts about the matter. 5) We got renewed article consistency, and no more cases of veering from caps to lower case depending on biological order, often in the same article, even the same sentence. 5) Probably most importantly, we stopped forcing a confusing, bird-geeks-only style on lay readers, one that caused them to question the work's quality, and frequently led to them engaging in their first edits to fix what they saw as typos, or to at least raise a concern about it on a talk page, only to be jumped on by pro-caps people. I could go on, but that's probably a sufficient starting list.

B) Already answered repeatedly by multiple people on at least two pages. Your supposition that they're distinct because of the caps is not applicable here, for MOS:Accessibility reasons. This is not a paper journal. Most screen readers indicate no difference between "common gull" and "Common Gull". This is why many of us were carefully rewriting in bird articles before the caps went away. Even a link is not really enough, per WP:REUSE – we expect people to use printed copies, repurpose our text without links in other documents, etc. This being an encyclopedia, i.e. a big pile of explanatory wording, we are never afraid to add a few words to make meaning clearer, and MoS frequently advises doing so: rewrite to avoid confusion and dispute. Clarification between the common gull species and gulls that are common is much more effectively done in this kind of work with extra words, or rearranged words (I just illustrated both), plus links, and often by including a binomial, than with some kind of style quirk. Even for readers who can see it, the caps quirk is usually seen as just an obvious typo, and it frequently led to editwarring; they are not steeped in the signification you intend, unlike your orn. journal and birdwatcher colleagues. Journals in ornithology usually (not always, and in inconsistent ways whey they do) go the capping route because they're trying hard to save space and to communicate between specialists in the same field as concisely as possible. (Other zoology and general science journals almost never permit "Common Gull" style, even in ornithology papers, because it's not even meaningful to many other zoologists.) These expediency and compression constraints do not apply here (and we don't borrow similar quirks from news style either). Other mainstream publications have no difficulty with the Common/common gull sort of distinction. Otherwise, the emphasis-capping-for-disambiguation practice would be universal; instead, English is abandoning more and more capital letters. If WP editors and readers were having difficulty with it, we would have already gone back to that practice, but there has been no call to do so, and no evidence anyone, much less readers in particular, are having problems in this regard.

It's not "marketing-style emphasis", nor is it "promotional". Who is it marketing or promoting? I understand your objection regarding screen readers and so forth, but that's a limitation of the screen reader, it's not a reason to sacrifice careful, nuanced writing. Ironically your supposed clarification "the common gull species" does nothing of the sort: "the common gull species" and "gulls that are common" could be read to mean the same thing (if you really want to be unambiguous while eschewing capital letters, you'd have to write "common gull (Larus canus)"...which is exactly why I think MOS:COMMONNAMECAPS is foolish when "Common Gull" achieves the same, unambiguously, in two words rather than four. Your suggestion that someone seeing "Common Gull" will assume it's some sort of typo is belittling to the reader. As for your arguments, 1), 2), 3) and 4) are essentially the same argument expressed in different ways, and 5) is not a "geeks-only" position as far as I'm concerned. But this is, as you say, off-topic, and the decision was made so I'll let it go. I was merely using it as an example. Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
This is just more rehash. Please see WP:BIRDCAPS. The gist is that, no, it is not "unambiguously" clear that Common Gull means a specific species, except to an ornithologist/birdwatcher. It was demonstrated undeniably by eight+ years of fighting about it that the attempt to signify in this manner – in Wikipedia, to the broadest and most general audience in history – was frequently perceived as a typographical error by non-specialist readers and editors. No matter how strongly bird people feel about the style, orders of magnitude more people consider it an abuse of capitalization, and this is not going to change any time soon. If it were necessary or even helpful to signify in this manner outside a particular expert context where the exact meaning of the signification is already known by the reader, then general biology journals would also do it. In point of fact, virtually none of them permit the style, even in ornithology papers, because it's weird and confusing even to other biologists who are not ornithologists. Please, we really have been over this many times and at excessive length already.

Our normal style for such a case is actually to write "the common gull (Larus canus)", with the link to the article on it. On subsequent mentions it's good enough to write something like "the common gull species" or "L. canus" without redundantly linking. If you really think "the common gull species" and "gulls that are common" are still synonymous in the reader mind in some context (which seems unlikely), then be clearer, e.g. "the common gull (L. canus)", or whatever the context seems to need. This will be entirely more clear to more people than expecting them to magically intuit that "Common Gull" means "this is a species". Same goes for magically intuiting that "Endangered" means "endangered according to a very particular definition". I'll quote Robert Anton Wilson about assumptive thinking and writing: "When you assume, you make an ass out of both u and me."
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, to get back on topic for this page, instead of this continuing to be a pointless discussion fork: We could probably prevent much future disputation about this by adding something like "including for disambiguation or signification purposes" to the section on not using capitalization for emphasis. If people aren't clear on the scope, clarify the scope.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, on topic for this page (I've answered your comments re species names in your collapsed para above): species in the IUCN's Vulnerable, Endangered and Critically Endangered categories are all, to varying extents, endangered. But only the species that have been assessed as belonging to the Endangered category are Endangered. The fact that you're still portraying this usage as "Caps Means Important" or "marketing-style emphasis" shows that you still don't get it. This is not something that "ornithologists do", it's a standard usage of capital letters across all fields. It's not "emphasis", it's "implied specificity", if you want to give it a name. It's a legitimate and recognised usage of English, an indication that "these words are being used in a specific context [which can be explained, if necessary, the first time it's used] and mean more than their general meaning would suggest", and your attempt to outlaw it makes no more sense to me than outlawing the semi-colon just because you don't like it and some people misapply it.

"Capitals make a word or words specific in their reference; distinguishing, for instances, between the white house (a house painted white) and the White House (the US president's official residence), or between a Christian scientist (a scientist who is a Christian) and a Christian Scientist (a member of the Church of Christ Scientist)." — The Oxford Manual of Style, page 73

The differences between an endangered species and an Endangered species, and between a common gull and a Common Gull, strike me as almost exactly analogous to the Christian Scientist example given above. This is the usage that you're trying to outlaw, to no advantage that I can see other than avoiding argument and a bogus appeal to consistency. And I don't buy your argument that you're simply trying to avoid edit-warring: you're simply trying to impose your preference, and you're being just as dogmatic I am. And I will continue to be so, because (in my eyes) you're dumbing down the English language and taking away a useful tool from my writer's armoury. Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
We're clearly just talking past each other. There is no confusion at all here that the intent of this capitalization is what you call "implied specificity". It is among (very close to chief among) the types of what MoS is calling "emphasis", as a blanket term, that we do not want to be done in our articles with capital letters. The reason is that everyone in every field is going to want to employ this style for everything that people in their field typically do this with in their inside-our-field publications, with an end result of thousands upon thousands of nouns and noun phrases getting capitalized in ways that mean nothing to outsiders and look like typographical errors, inspiring immediate correction, followed by tedious disputes. That's exactly what happened with "bird caps"; eight F'ing years of fighting, that got increasingly disruptive over time, to the point of off-wiki organized campaigning, threats of editorial boycotting, RfC disruption, meatpuppetry, and gross incivility. We developed these rules for real reasons, and high up the list is that people get attached to stylistic matters and if given free range to obsess and disrupt about them will often do so.

The very fact that you're drawing a 1:1 analogy between "Endangered" and "Common Gull" proves conclusively that this is rehash of exactly the same matter we've already decided repeatedly. We just do not capitalize in that manner here because it confuses and irritates readers and leads to interminable fighting; it is only helpful to experts in expert contexts who recognize it as a very particular form of signification and who already know exactly what is being signified. (Aside: The "Christian Science" comparison is a false analogy; CS adherents are not [collectively] scientists and CS is not a science. So your attempted "Common Gulls are among but not exclusive among the gulls that are common" and "Endangered species are among but not exclusive among those that are endangered in some sense" set-up doesn't work. CS is also an organization, and is thus a proper name/proper noun.)

The assertion that in this one particular case, it's "a standard usage of capital letters across all fields" is demonstrably false: the "Endangered" usage is uncommon in general-audience writing, like news journalism and non-fiction books that are general-audience, non-specialist works (like our encyclopedia is). Another approach to this: You assert that it's a standard, so cite the standard, and then demonstrate that this [surely non-existent] standard has been adopted by other mainstream publishers and style guides. This is typically how we go about settling assertions about standards. [Examples: It's is why MOS:NUM says half of what it does, because ISO, IETF, etc., standards on many things can be proven to be well-accepted, and are frequently cited by other style guides such as CMoS and Scientific Style and Format. It's also why we rejected use of gibibyte and related units, because it can also be demonstrated conclusively that that the attempt to standardize on these as distinct from gigabyte, etc. (the 1000-multiplier vs. 1024-multiplier distinction) has no real-world traction outside highly specialized works. If that changes some day, then and only then will it change here too. It's also why we rejected "bird caps": turned out to not be an actual standard, and to have little real-world buy-in, even in specialist literature (where capping is frequent but done in inconsistent ways, by conflicting house styles of regional organizations, and rejected entirely by most biology journals, even some in ornithology).]

If we want to signify/specify that a particular organization's exact definition of "endangered" (whether their own materials capitalize that or not) is meant in one of our sentences, then say it with clear prose and a citation, just as we also make it clear whether we mean 1000-based or 1024-based gigabytes. MoS rule #1: in case of inclarity or dispute, rewrite to avoid it. Yet another way of putting it: WP doesn't "imply" anything, we state it and make it clear. "Implied specificity" is thus antithetical to our purpose and methods. It buys us nothing encyclopedic, and is lost on most readers, many of whom it just confuses. Writing clearly does not have those side effects.

I think this is now the fifth time, on two different concurrent pages, I've explained all this, including that no one here is failing to understand the intent behind the "Endangered" capping, nor is anyone confusing that kind emphasis with marketing emphasis. For WP purposes, it's still a form of emphasis (for implication of specificity), and we don't want capital letters used for it. Ever. This is WP's consistent approach to the matter for around a decade and half now, and it has nothing to do with my personal preferences (indeed, the down-casing approach here pre-dates my arrival and goes further than my own usual writing style). (Aside: I write on other wikis with other, looser capping standards, or even strict ones in the opposite direction, and follow the style guides at those wikis for their content. The fact that you're showing up here with this "dogmatic [as] I am ... I will continue to be so, because [accusation here] and [insistence on personal preference here]" attitude is a bad sign, a "fight against consensus until I damned well get what I want" viewpoint that is not going to lead anywhere good. If you were writing something for The Times or Nature you would follow their style guide, or accept that your material would be edited to follow it. Do the same here, please. This is a serious publication with its own house style, it is not your blog or some webboard where anything goes.) I'm not going to go through yet another explanation of this stuff, but will just link back to this re-re-re-explanation if it comes up again.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

So it's "dogmatic" and "a rehash" when I state my argument, but not when you do the same? For the umpteenth time, this is not a MOS issue. It's a standard English issue, as I've demonstrated by the reference I gave you from the Oxford Manual of Style. Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
"Dogmatic" is quoting your own self-description back at you. "Rehash" is a factual description: this is a discussion we've had repeatedly before. "Standard English"? Again, please cite the standard, tell us who issued it, and prove that the world has adopted it. There are hundreds of English style manuals and they all conflict on just about everything. For every editor who wants to impose the exact preferences of Oxford Manual of Style (a.k.a. New Hart's Rule) there are just as many (actually far more) who want to impose those of The Chicago Manual of Style, which sharply conflicts with it in hundreds of ways (and others want to impose some other style guide's "rules" with which they are professionally or educationally more familiar). MoS is based on those works and, through a consensus-and-compromise process that's been running for over a decade and a half, and reached stability on almost everything before 2010. If you think you are raising some new issue, you are mistaken.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Out of (mild) interest, I randomly clicked on an archive page above and almost immediately found the following comment from you, which appears to contradict everything you've just said:

"Internet" with a a capital "I" and lower-case "internet" have two different meanings (the Internet, vs. any inter-network; the latter is a common noun, though not a common one, if you get my meaning)."

This appears to be exactly the point I'm making above, which you're now claiming is against the consensus. Have you changed your mind, or am I confused? Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Nope. Completely unrelated. The Internet is a proper noun/proper name; it is the, singular, only global internetwork of internetworks, the one we're using right now, based on TCP/IP and related protocols. An internet is any network of networks, using any protocols, (an internetwork in longer form, more commonly called a WAN in modern jargon), and this is a common noun. In "My friend Guy", "Guy" is a proper noun; in "the guys at work", it is a common noun, even though Guy is one of those guys.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd also like to see some examples, if at all possible Stanton, where the WP norm is "to use italics, not overcapitalization", to mark what you call "terms of art". And what exactly do you mean by "terms of art"? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
See MOS:WAW and words as words. When introducing a new term of art, it is often italicized on first occurrence, especially if the usage is specialized but coincides with a more general usage of the same word(s) or otherwise might not be understood as a term of art. I.e., it is not necessary with something unique like "myocardial infarction" for "heart attack", but is advisable when, e.g., introducing the legal concept of real property in an article about the law or a legal case, since it is a special two-word unit with a highly particular legal meaning (to which we would link), and doesn't mean "property that isn't fake or fictional" which is how it's apt to be interpreted by someone unfamiliar with it. While some legal writers actually do capitalize such things in certain kinds of legal writing (mostly contracts – "The Party of the First Part to this Agreement (hereafter 'the Agreement')" – that style is never used here for legal or any other topics. Again, we just do not use capital letters as any form of signification. Italics are also used to group together a multi-word term of art so it's clear where the term starts and stops. These italicizations usually come after introductory wording like "known as", "referred to", "the term", etc. This practice thus perfectly fits (using "classified as" or the like) in a construction such as "The buttonheaded bandersnatch has been classified as critically endangered by [whatever organization(s) here, and link to the section(s) at their article(s) on their threat-level classification system(s)]". It's structurally the same as something like "The skater broke his ankle while attempting a move called the 360 pop shove-it in the final competition". This does not look like a typo or an intentional abuse of style to any readers, unlike "The buttonheaded bandersnatch has been classified as Critically Endangered by [XYZ]" (or "a move called the 360 Pop Shove-It", for that matter, though that is a style you will definitely encounter in skateboarder publications, including the one I used to produce, where capping of trick names was the insider norm).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I did not previously see "Endangered Species" as a "term of art". The examples you have invented above look quite reasonable to me, but I'm not sure that's how editors have typically edited up to now. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC) (p.s. I'm pretty sure that the "buttonheaded bandersnatch" isn't yet en Endangered Species at Wikipedia)

There's a legitimate choice to be made in the MoS, and it's clear that the consensus to date has been against some uses of capitals to distinguish between particular and general uses of terms. However, exaggeration is unhelpful and it's simply wrong to say We just do not capitalize in that manner here because it confuses and irritates readers and leads to interminable fighting; it is only helpful to experts in expert contexts who recognize it as a very particular form of signification and who already know exactly what is being signified. Both capitalizing and not capitalizing confuse and irritate different sets of readers, and many ordinary non-expert editors naturally capitalize in ways the MoS forbids. In areas in which I edit, for example, it remains the case that something between 20% and 60% of the English names of organisms added to articles by less experienced editors are capitalized with the proportion depending on the country of origin of the editor, so it's obviously not just done by "experts". Both "sides" in these debates have some legitimate arguments – this is, after all, a matter of style not of right or wrong, and it would make for more productive discussions if everyone accepted this. Peter coxhead (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Except that the MOS explicitly states that we don't unnecessarily capitalize. With a number of alternatives at hand to disambiguate these sorts of terms (presented above), this appears to be a prime example of unnecessary. The only "sides" here are following/not following consensus-based style guidelines. Primergrey (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
@Primergrey: there's currently no explicit statement in the MoS about whether IUCN status designations should be capitalized or not, although the general principle does, as you say, clearly suggest not capitalizing. So there's no question yet of following/not following consensus-based style guidelines; we need to clarify whether this is one of those cases where capitalization is acceptable (which seems to have been the main style used to date). You appear to think "definitely no"; I think "possibly yes". Ad hominem attacks don't help to persuade me. Demonstrating what appropriate reliable sources do, and showing how clarity can be achieved without capitalizing, does. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Where is this "attack"? Or were you making a pre-emptive declaration? If so, I also have never been swayed by an ad hominem attack and can't recall ever hearing of anyone who was. Re:"no explicit statement", "no unnecessary caps" covers most situations explicitly. How much more cumbersome would guideline pages be if they covered every non-exception ever encountered? You say that this is about "style and not about right or wrong" as though they were mutually exclusive. This is exactly about whether or not this style is right or wrong...for Wikipedia.Primergrey (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

La cumparsita or La Cumparsita

A discussion regarding the proposed move of La cumparsita to La Cumparsita, which is currently active at Talk:La cumparsita#Requested move 17 August 2017, may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

What should be done about element names?

I just changed three metals from capitals to lower case after trying to find something here about capitalizing elements. I'm pretty sure the convention should be lower case. Does anyone want to add something to the science section like MOSELEMENTCAPS? Here's my edit: [[2]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Not necessary. This doesn't come up frequently enough that we need a rule about it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
For capitalization of anything that has a Wikipedia article, I just defer to the usage in that article, as that's where the most editor attention has been concentrated. If I change a capitalization elsewhere my edit summary is "per WP article" or similar. If I feel that the subject article is wrong on the capitalization, I resolve that there before I change capitalization anywhere else. This methodology fosters consistency within the encyclopedia, while centralizing relevant discussion in one place. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Our MOS already says to "avoid unnecessary capitalization". It doesn't get much more unnecessary than this. Primergrey (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks all! TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It exists after all [3] Primergrey (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Great detective work - thanks! TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Soldier, Sailor, Marine, Airman, etc.

Can someone please clarify if these are the be upper case or lowercase when referring to an individual in that military branch (ex. "the airman identified the target" or "the Airman identified the target". I'm having some trouble seeing what the MOS says on this. Garuda28 (talk) 04:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

You can look these words up in a dictionary. They are all lower cased:[4][5][6][7] Great scott (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@Garuda28 and Great scott: MOS:JOBTITLE has this, without having to resort to dictionaries, though they'll agree. Such a title is only capitalized when attached to the name ("Airman Chiang") or when the subject is the rank as a thing in and of itself, in a particular armed force, thus: "The US Navy rank of Commodore was renamed to Rear Admiral Lower Half, though the function of the commodore – command of a squadron of up to ten vessels – remains.", versus "Most of the world's navies have commodores in their rank structure, somewhere between captains and admirals, but with variance from country to country on the finer details." It's similar to "Donald Trump was elected as President of the United States", vs. "Lots of countries have presidents, some have a prime ministers, and a few, like Ireland, have both." The reason "the Airman identified the target" is wrong in WP (and pretty much every other publication that isn't subject to a military house style sheet) is the same reason it's wrong to capitalize "Cat" in the second of these sentences: "My pet's name is Dammit the Cat. And that Cat [sic] is a real pain in the butt." The capitalization in the first sentence as part of a proper noun phrase (which is also what "Airman Chiang" is) does not provide a reason to capitalize the same word later, even though the word refers to the same individual cat (or airman). This is also part of why style guides mostly no longer advise writing things like "University of Tucson janitor Joe O'Bacon died on Tuesday. He worked at the University[sic] for twenty-three years." It's different when an uncommon – usually metaphoric or otherwise "colorful" – word in a name is used as an abbreviation or nickname, and isn't confusable with anything else, e.g. "Stevens joined a gang called the East Side Posse. ... His initiation into the Posse was ...". "Posse" isn't a generic descriptive label (the gang is not in fact a posse), but "university", "cat", and "airman" are actually descriptions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
This is similar to over-capitalization of "Court" in any reference to the Supreme Court [of where ever] when it's just being used descriptively. Just ran across and fixed this case today, and there are many others. It's an over-capping style picked up from law review stylesheets, where the style is used as "signification" emphasis in material where the attorney readers already understand that "Court" will mean "the Supreme Court" and "court" will mean a lower court. Our readers have no such indoctrination, so the style makes no sense here. If there's any chance of confusion, use "Supreme Court"; if there's not (as in "The Supreme Court issued its ruling in this case in August 2017. In it, the court said ..." – there is no possibility of misinterpreting "court" to mean some other court), then use lower-case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I would note that we do not capitalise ranks on Wikipedia except when used directly before an individual's name, even in articles discussing the rank. That was decided long ago (since we used to once). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
That seems like a perfectly fine result to me, even if we end up with a consensus that some things, e.g. titles of heads of state, should be capitalized when used in a word-as-words manner.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters/Archive_24&oldid=1245212387"