Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

Marines vs. marines (and Soldier, Sailor, Airmen, etc.)

I’ve posted here about this before, but I’m still completely unsure what the consensus is. Is there an established consensus, and if so, can we add it directly to the MOS to avoid the massive confusion we see acrosss Wikipedia on this? If there is no consensus, I don’t have an issue with either way, but I believe that we should be consistent on the matter. Garuda28 (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

While some capitalize, Chicago Manual of Style does not. (http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/CapitalizationTitles/faq0006.html). Furthermore all of the U.S. military services capitalize all terms, but only in relation to their own country. Garuda28 (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
From the Military terms section, "Formal names of military units, including armies, navies, air forces, fleets, regiments, battalions, companies, corps, and so forth, are proper names and should be capitalized." Formal names being specific units and branches like U.S. Marine Corps or Royal Navy but not general terms like French airman or U.S. sailor. Primergrey (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
For whatever reason, people are admit about using U.S. Marine. According to the MOS would it be incorrrct to say “my sister is a Marine”?Garuda28 (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that soldier and sailor are usually common nouns, and it would be odd to capitalize them. Marine on the other hand is not, in general. Are Marines marines? No, Marines are soldiers, who happen to be transported by sea. There is no generally-understood sense of the word marine in general, as opposed to "member of the United States Marine Corps".
To elaborate, is there such a thing as a "French marine"? I don't think there is. --Trovatore (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Considering the Chicago Manual of Style says that Marine need not be capitalized, then there are indeed “French marines”(since marines are not an American concept). My understanding is that a marine (or Marine) is a member of a naval infantry or marine corps, in the same sense a sailor is a member of a navy Garuda28 (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Is it not an American concept? I'm not a real military buff so I could be wrong on this, but I thought it was. Doesn't the concept take its name from the USMC, in which "marine" is an adjective, meaning "of or pertaining to the sea"? --Trovatore (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Nah, first marines were from ancient times. Almost all navies have naval infantry or marine forces, but the oldest is actually the Spanish marines. USMC is definitely the largest and most famous though. Garuda28 (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The largest, yes. The most famous? Tell that to the Royal Marines! But I suggest not to their faces! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
For the record, as well, there are French marines. See Commandos Marine. --Jayron32 13:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Indeed there are. And many others. The Spanish marines being the oldest of the lot. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Just to throw oil on the fire, we do have WP:SCOUTMOS#Capitalization which says that a member of the Girl Scouts is a Scout, not a scout. In English a member of the Fusiliers Marins would be a French marine, so marine does not always mean USMC. If we capitalize marine, because the label they use is shared with the name of their organization, many people will feel we should also capitalize soldiers, sailors and airpeople too.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Airman, and yes. I’m good with either total upper case or total lower case (would personally be inclined for upper case) for branch descriptors, and there is prescience for both, but I think it needs to be applied equally across service branches and countries for consistency. Garuda28 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
SCOUTMOS is simply wrong, like so much else in wikiproject-authored style essays. That is not an MoS page and shouldn't have that shortcut.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

No, none of them should be capitalised. They're not proper names. Trying to make "Marine" a proper name when referring to an individual is merely a marine conceit and an attempt to assert their superiority which we should not pander to. As to marines being an American concept! Dear, oh dear, oh dear... The Royal Marines, for instance, were founded in 1755 (that's long before the establishment of the United States, by the way, let alone the establishment of the USMC!). The Spanish Marines, although not actually referred to as marines in Spanish (but as naval infantry), date from the 16th century. It may surprise some to learn that the world does not revolve around America and its institutions! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

off-topic comments
Necrothesp - stop with the anti-American tirades already. It lends nothing to this discussion, it just looks silly. (and I'm not even American) - theWOLFchild 17:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
No anti-American tirade here. Just can't believe anyone would think that Marines are an American concept! That suggests an American-centric view of the world that needs correcting. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I must've missed the part where someone said "Marines are an American concept", but just the same, WP isn't the place to "correct world views". You'll never succeed and it just causes distraction and disruption. - theWOLFchild 02:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
If you read the whole discussion you'll see this is relevant to it, as it's the USMC who tend to capitalise "Marine". Editors not understanding the fact that there are marines who are not members of the USMC and are members of forces that have actually been around longer than the USMC (i.e. therefore marines are not an American concept) is entirely relevant to this discussion. I think you may therefore have rather missed my point by assuming I'm being anti-American; I'm not, I'm merely correcting a myth that some Americans clearly believe. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not "assuming" anything. Unless you can't point to a specific comment where somebody here made the claim that "Marines are American concept", then I stand by my comments. Talk about "assumptions"... you are making a huuuge leap in assuming that just because someone believes "Marines" from the USMC should be capitalized, they therefore believe 'marines' are somehow an "American concept". This has nothing to do with which navy had a infantry component first. Therefore, the only one here "suggesting an American-centric view of the world" (to use your words) is you. This is expressly why I suggested you leave this issue be in the first place, so that it doesn't derail the topic actually being discussed and fill up the page with post after post of needless off-topic text. Now, please... drop it already. Thank you - theWOLFchild 22:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
(also, I'm collapsing this section of thread. Reply again if you must, but please leave it collapsed. No need to make the page any longer than necessary)
Pls see following, quoted from the preceeding thread:

Is it not an American concept? I'm not a real military buff so I could be wrong on this, but I thought it was. Doesn't the concept take its name from the USMC, in which "marine" is an adjective, meaning "of or pertaining to the sea"? --Trovatore (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. @Thewolfchild: I assumed you'd read this before you started on me, given it was only just above what I wrote. Maybe now you'll appreciate my point! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh. my. gaawwwd... is that what (now 2 of) you are going on about? The guy asked a question. No "claim" was made. I think he made is pretty clear when he added: "I could be wrong on this" and ended the whole post with a question mark (?). A question that was promptly answered by Garuda28, and followed by a half-dozen replies (including one by Necro), all before Necro suddenly decided to start this "I must fix everyone's world view" off topic rant. No one here is beating their chest, asserting their firm belief that "Marines are an American concept". A simple question was included in a post about the topic at hand. It was answered. So, that's it. Move on. Nothing to see here. Jeeez... - theWOLFchild 19:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
The only rant I can see here is yours. Next time, try reading carefully and understanding what others are saying before you go off on one (although given your foul-mouthed rants below I can only assume this is usual behaviour for you). Also check timestamps before making inaccurate comments! Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
"The only rant I can see here is yours." (what a shock) "Next time..." (You're planning on doing this again?) "...try reading carefully and understanding what others are saying before you go off on one" (and yet, I outlined the entire discussion, right above, which you somehow missed. Perhaps you should practice what you preach) "(although given your foul-mouthed rants below..." (and now you're ranting about something "below" that has nothing to do with you, and yet still seems to have really, really upset you. There are other websites where you can avoid adult language... in adult discussions) "...I can only assume this is usual behaviour for you)." (you know what they about "assuming" things... it makes an "ass" out of "u" and some guy named "ming") "Also check timestamps before making inaccurate comments!" (yup, did that. The comments I mentioned are in chronological order and before your "world-view-changing" diatribe. So, no go on the timestamps. Distraction attempt failed). "Thanks." (oh, you're very welcome. Let's consider the matter closed, unless you have a burning need to have the last word, m'kay? Have a nice day - theWOLFchild 01:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Per Enlisted the "official rank of a "junior" M|marine is "Private". Having said that, the "unofficial" form of address is "M|marine" (United States Marine Corps rank insignia#Forms of address). Nonetheless, members of the USMC probably (do) consider that M|marine should always be capitalised with respect to members of the USMC or in reference to the corps - "The M|marines advanced to ..."? My version of Fowler's Modern English Usage refers to capitalisation of shortened forms of proper names. This falls to this to some extent but this is not our "house style". In short, "The marines stormed the beach" is our house style though those from the USMC would (no doubt argue) otherwise. However, if you contribute here, you work under the "house rules" just as when you serve, you serve under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or the provisions of the particular armed force in which you serve. Doesn't mean you can't work within the system to change it though. But, having said that, there should not be one rule for some and not for all. IMHO Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Remember that our house style is not carved in stone... it can be changed. So, if there is consensus to capitalize military ranks and designations, we can (and should) change our house style to reflect that consensus. The question is... IS there a consensus to capitalize military ranks and designations? Blueboar (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
No, not carved in stone, but this is not a case of a rank as a pre-nominal. "Private|Marine(?) Bloggs" is not the question (except that "marine" is not an official rank - per the links). And where is the "line in the sand" (or the thin edge of the wedge)? Does it only apply to members of the USMC? This is a discussion that should be notified at MILHIST - which I am doing. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
"except that "marine" is not an official rank". It is in the Royal Marines. It replaced private and gunner between the wars and has been in use ever since. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Per @SchreiberBike , "Scout" appears to be a "clique" decision. One would not refer to "private", "sapper", "bombardier" or any other rank/employment in without caps (usually), except where it is a "pre-nominal"- such as "Private Bloggs". "Scout" capitalised in the generic goes against the MOS - but this is another issue. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
A grammar matter. It goes to how the word/term is used. A proper noun, such as: "General Smith was a Royal Marine" or "Smith was a member of the Royal Marines" or a common noun, such as: "Smith held the rank of general" or "Smith was a marine". Kierzek (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
These are reasonable and "correct" distinctions. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
So it seems that consensus is to lower case branch designators when referring to people (Smith was an American marine) but to capitalize of refering to the organization (Smith was a member of the U.S. Marines)Garuda28 (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Cinderella157. Garuda28, it is not just the "referring to people"; it has to do with, are you referring to a specific person, place or thing or just a general mention in a generic sense of the word. Kierzek (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
We had this debate in reverse long ago. We used to capitalise military ranks. It was decided to stop doing it. Note that military ranks in front of people's names are of course always capitalised (e.g. Marine Jones, Colonel Smith). I don't think anyone is arguing against that. There is also a good argument for capitalising when used as a collective noun referring to the whole organisation (e.g. the Marines [or the Army] established infantry units). But not when just referring to an individual or group of individuals (e.g. the marine(s) [or the soldier(s)] advanced). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
What Necrothesp says. Marine, sailor and airman are common nouns. Capitalisation would be incorrect, except when used in a rank as part of a name ("Marine Jones"). We don't (shouldn't) capitalise "general" or "admiral" in this context; doing so is known as vanity capitalisation, or pride capitalisation, and it's plain wrong. Shem (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Jayron, I agree. Necrothesp, if one is saying: "Braun was a corporal in the German Army", then yes. If one is saying: "Braun was a member of the army during that time", then no. Kierzek (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

So since it seems that we have a consensus for lowercase, I propose this addition to the Manual of style "branch indicators, such as soldier, sailor, airman, marine, and coast guardsman, are to be written in the lower case when referencing to an individual or group of individuals." Does anyone have any edits or additions they would like to make?Garuda28 (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know where you would want to add it but see MOS:MILTERMS. Soldier and sailor are not (to my knowledge) used as ranks, though airman is (in the US). The correct ranks for a junior enlisted soldier is private (or another, such as sapper, to indicate their specialty) and for a sailor, it would be seaman. The Discussion has focused on marine. In the US (per above) "marine" is a common form of address even though the the junior rank is formally private. Coast guardsman is an official generic reference and not a rank. The contentious point is marine? I might say (if anything): "Terms, such as soldier, sailor, airman, marine, and coast guardsman, are to be written in the lower case when referencing to an individual (other than by name) or group of individuals."
Yep! Was thinking exactly as a new bullet under MOS:MILTERMS, with specific reference to the common form, or generic, form of address (and not rank). I feel that something needs to be said, because especially with marine there is a great deal of inconsistency. Garuda28 (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Added guidance from consensus to the page under MOS:MILTERMS. If anyone has any further comments or changes please reply bellow here!Garuda28 (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I tweaked it as well based on the discussion and consensus, above. The last thing we need is to be vague. Kierzek (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Context?

  • Question re context: more for my own information, rather than an argument for or against capitalization.... I think it is correct that one would write: “Jones was a member of the United States Marine Corps, and fought at Iwo Jima” (with “United States Marine Corps” capitalized)... my question is, wouldn't one also capitalize “Marine” in: “Jones was a Marine, and fought at Iwo Jima”? Context is important, and in this context I think the word “Marine” is not being used generically; it’s essentially being used as an abbreviated (or shortened) form of the fuller “United States Marine Corps”. Does context like this this make any difference? (Note... I would have the same question regarding similar titles... such as the word "President" in the sentence "While Obama was President, he visited Toronto." In this context, I would think that the word "President" is not used generically, but as a shortening of "President of the United States". Is this accurate?) Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
The first case is correct, since your referring to the specific branch. The second is not, since it is not being used as an abbreviation. It would be correct to “Jones was a member of the Marine forces that landed on Iwo Jima” though. In essence if one could substitute in Army or Air Force it would be capitalized. If one would substitute in soldier or airmen it would be lower case. The difference is that marine isn’t really a title, not in any different way than soldier is.Garuda28 (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Neither marine, army or air force should be in caps without more specific words, such as US Marine, US Air Force or German Navy. Kierzek (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
My understanding was that if it is referring to a specific military service branch it is capitiaze, but if in geteneral refering to a army is lowercase.Garuda28 (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
OK... but I still don’t understand WHY this would be. If it is clear from context that the simple “marine” MEANS “US Marine”... why does omitting the “US” make a difference? Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Common noun vs Proper noun. Kierzek (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
To piggyback off of what Kierzek is saying it would be U.S. Marines if it is referring to the U.S. Marine Corps (a proper noun) or U.S. marines if referring to a group of American marines (a common noun).Garuda28 (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Blueboar I raised essentially these very points in late 2014 in a discussion that you were a part of. What you refer to is advice contained in at least my version of Fowler's Modern English Usage. It is not consistent with the advice of CMOS and the MOS, which is essentially based on CMOS. In short - shortened forms of a full title are not the proper name. If you want to rewrite MOS:CAPS, you are welcome to try. I gave up about 3 years ago. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
No, I am not trying to rewrite the MOS... I am trying to understand it... I am trying to grasp WHY the MOS says what it says. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
The Chicago Manual of Style is not the-end-all-be-all-holy-fucking-grail-of-all-that-is-written. While, at times, it may serve as a useful guide for certain areas of style, it is not the final word on how things are written on Wikipedia and should not be treated as such (imho) That said, where could you possibly find a scenario where "U.S. Marines would ever be written as "U.S. marines"? (or even if referred to as "American marines") If you identify them by country or demonym, you are identifying that specific service and therefore using the proper noun, not a common noun. Further, when referring to members of the UK Royal Marines, they are always referred to as "Royal Marines" and not just "Marines", (or should be) and therefore should be capitalized. I don't see how this would be different for any Marine from any naval service. It's pretty much always used as a title, which makes it a proper noun. - theWOLFchild 17:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm seeing changes being written into the MOS, but I don't those changes being proposed here first, nor a consensus in support of those changes being made. So it's basically the wild west here, yet again. And the MOS? ...a lawless frontier where everyone and anyone can do whatever the fuck they please. And not an admin to be found anywhere, as-per-fuckin-usual, to keep this bullshit in check. People... these are the actual fucking guidelines that govern this project. Heaven forbid we have some orderly process involving the community to approve any changes. Do you all think that maybe... just maybe, we should give this 'consensus thing' a try before we go changing anymore guidelines, all willy-nilly-however-the-fuck-we-please? Hmm... just maybe? - theWOLFchild 02:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
CMOS is not the MOS but it generally follows the CMOS. Caps for shortened forms of a fuller formal name is followed by some styles but not here. Where it is followed, the rule-of-thumb is that the full name can be substituted for the shortended form without other change - eg "During the hearing, the Committee considered ..." and "During the hearing, the House Committee on Un-American Activities considered ...". US Marines is the well known name of the United States Marine Corps. Royal Marines is the well known name of the Corps of Royal Marines. Military terms addresses this and remains unchanged: "Unofficial but well-known names should also be capitalized (the Green Berets, the Guard)". It may be appropriate to substitute the well known name where the same rule-of-thumb can be applied. One would not say "Australian Soldiers landed on X Island". One probably shouldn't say that "US Marines landed on X Island", since it was not the whole corps that landed. One might say: "I Marine Expeditionary Force of the US Marines landed on X Island" otherwise: "US marines landed on X Island". These are interpretations of the guidance. Hope this is of assistance. You will note that I am not pushing any barrow here. Any degree of support (if at all) has been very reserved. That I have made edits on the main page subsequent to the OP, have been to maintain the intent of the OP and to replace "branch identifier" with a more appropriate term. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree, when used in a generic sense, "marine" would be a common noun and therefore not to be put in caps. "The marines landed on X Island". I would say, "US Marines landed on X Island", is specific enough to be a proper noun. Kierzek (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Australian soldiers is also quite specific and is not a proper noun? US Marines is the shortened form of USMC. If you substitute USMC into the sample, it is not correct in fact. For it to be correct in fact, that sample would need to be restructured: "Unit Y of the USMC landed on X Island". Regarding your edit: "... when referencing to an individual or a group of individuals in non-specific terms..". The definite article provides a specific reference but it does not a proper noun make. Consequently, the edit does not clarify the matter but makes it more obscure. Also, a proper noun/name is singular (although there might be two Toms in the room). Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
You are not being consistent with your agreement to my "correct examples" as you stated above. I would ask that you consider my points and to not revert my clarification, which is in line with proper grammar or obtain consensus, and it will be okay with me. U.S. (or US) Marines or "Smith was a member of the U.S. Marines" is no different than Royal Marines or stating German Navy. Lastly, a proper noun is not always "singular". Royal Marines and The Kennedys, being two examples. Kierzek (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I have been quite consistent. The issue with your example is that it would be an error "in fact", since the Corp (as a whole) would not have landed. I have slightly edited my previous response to hopefully improve clarity. There are two matters of guidance at play here: common name (for the USMC or Royal Marines etc) and what has recently been added. I reverted your edit for the reason that that it does not add to clarify the matter. "Unit Y of the Australian Army was to conduct the offensive ... The Australian soldiers landed on X Island". In this example, "Australian soldiers" is specific by use of the definite article. It is referring to the soldiers of Unit Y. Hence, saying "in non-specific terms", does not clarify things. A proper noun must have a definite referent but the definite article used with a common noun also "creates" a definite referent so, not all nouns with a definite referent are proper nouns. What you actually appear to be trying to say is that an "unofficial but well known name" applies not only to the unit (corps in this case) with that name, but to any "specific" group (or an individual), formal or informal, that belongs to the unit. This then, would lead to capitalising "soldier" in the example I just gave. This is not what has been said (as I understand it). Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Response to second part eg Grammar matters.

Long response to proper nouns not being plural and other distinctions of proper nouns/names
Please see Proper noun. A proper noun or proper name (there is a distinction but the distinction is not an issue to this response) has "a" (singular) definite referent. It refers to one thing in particular in a given context, (even though it may be a group of things). A specific referent does not mean that the proper name is unique - there is more than one girl called "Mary Smith". From Proper noun: "Proper nouns are normally invariant for number: most are singular, but a few, referring for instance to mountain ranges or groups of islands, are plural (e.g. Hebrides)." I have seen sources that express it more emphatically than "most", since it is "a" definite (singular) referent even though it might take a plural form. Islands in the Hebrides are not called "Hebride". Secondly, while proper nouns are capitalised, not all capitalised words are proper nouns. Some words are capitalised because they are derived from a proper noun, even if they are not acting as a proper noun at the time. See from Proper noun: "Words or phrases derived from proper names are generally capitalized, even when they are not themselves proper names." "The Toyota cars parked outside ..." is an example, where "Toyota" is acting as an attributive noun, like an adjective, to describe "the cars". "Cars" is the noun in this phrase being modified to create a noun phrase. "Toyota" is capitalised because it is associated with the name of the company. "How many Toms are in the room?" Tom is not acting as a proper noun since it is not being used to refer to a "particular" referent. Similarly, "There were three Kennedys in the room", is not identifying three specific Kennedys. Kennedys is not acting as a proper name but is capitalised by convention because it from a proper name. "The Kennedys are ..." may be understood to be relatives of JFK but it is not a discretely defined set - the number is not fixed. Proper nouns do not take on articles or other modifiers. An exception is "weak proper nouns", which are usually associated with geographical locations and institution eg: the Bronx or The Hague. "Any Kennedy could have become president" and "He is not a Kennedy" are cases modified by an article or determiner, where "Kennedy" is not acting as a proper noun but is nonetheless capitalised. However, "Kennedy was shot in Dallas" is, because it has a specific referant even though we have not used the full name. On the matter of Royal Marines (and similarly USMC), we should look at the full and formal name rather than its the well known (shortended) and commonly used name of the Corps of Royal Marines. It is a discrete entity, which is singular (even though "Marine" is in the plural form. There is one corps by that name - not corps (which would be plural).

BTW, I have no disagreement with "Smith was a member of the U.S. Marines", since it can be substituted for the full and formal name of the corps without the need for any other change and without resulting in an error of "fact". It comes under the preexisting advice of a name by which the corps is "well known". It is not the same as saying: "Smith was a U.S. Mmarine". Semantics, yes - but that is the point. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 07:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

We seem to go over this topic endlessly; partly because it's widely misunderstood and partly because it's complicated and fuzzy in a language like English. Proper nouns do not take on articles or other modifiers – no; proper noun phrases (PNPs) that are singular in form do not normally require a determiner, although they may take one in some contexts (e.g. "That's not the John Kennedy"). Proper noun phrases that are plural in form do normally require a determiner, although this may be omitted in some contexts. Thus it's normally "the Hebrides", "the Alps", "the United States", etc. The "in form" qualifier is needed because in some contexts, a PNP can be plural in form and in its requirement for a determiner, but singular in agreement, e.g. "The United States is a large country", and in others plural in both senses, e.g. "The Alps are spread over several European countries".
However, as Cinderella157 rightly says capitalization and grammatical properness are not the same; the set of conventionally capitalized words and phrases is larger than the set of syntactically defined PNPs. (Semantically defined proper names are yet another matter...) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead, yes, we do seem to go over this endlessly. We might disagree on some of the finer distinctions but agree that the distinctions are poorly understood. Particularly, not all words that are capitalised are proper names (ie PNPs) and not all noun phrases with a definite referent are PNPs. Unfortunately, the MOS tends to reinforce these misconceptions rather than clarifying the matter (IMHO) and addressing this is, perhaps, is a resolution (notwithstanding systemic inertia). Would you are agree though, that "the Alps", while plural in form and agreement, are a singular "entity" in identity (as are the Hebrides)? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Certainly there are more words that are to be capitalized than just proper nouns; proper names and titles, for example. I can tell you that not all experts would agree with the nuances of disagreement, above. As for "the Alps", I would say proper noun, although others may say, proper name; such as with "the Kennedys". As to you comment: "What you actually appear to be trying to say is that an 'unofficial but well known name' applies not only to the unit (corps in this case) with that name, but to any 'specific' group (or an individual), formal or informal, that belongs to the unit. This then, would lead to capitalising 'soldier' in the example I just gave." No, that is not what I was saying, I would never agree that a general term/word such as "soldier" or "army", should be capitalized. In the end, yes for caps of the word "Alps", of your example, I would say. And I have seen it referred it as a single entity, but others I am sure would not agree when using said term. I still believe the definition could use a minor tweak for clarification on the main page as to this subject. Kierzek (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Cinderella157: the problem with saying that a noun phrase refers to a "singular entity" is that this is a semantic/philosophical concept that is hotly disputed. For example, some philosophers of biology treat species as "singular entities", and this used by some biologists as a reason for capitalizing the English names of species, even though they do not behave syntactically like PNPs. My view is that it's entirely context dependent. Sometimes we think of the Alps as a single entity, as in "the Alps is the longest mountain chain in Europe", sometimes as a collection of parts, as in my earlier example "the Alps are spread over several European countries". Human language overall is massively context dependent, and nowhere is this more apparent than in languages with weak inflectional morphology, like English. However, we certainly agree that in several ways the MOS tends to reinforce ... misconceptions rather than clarifying. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
..., the Bronx, the Amazon, the Sahara, the Matterhorn, the Wash, ... ? Largoplazo (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Kierzek, per Proper noun, a noun is a class of single words as opposed to a "noun phrase". This is then, the distiction between a proper noun and, a proper name (aka PNP). Also from that article: "For example, Londoner is capitalized because it derives from the proper name London, but it is not itself a proper name (it can be limited: the Londoner, some Londoners)." The same can be said for "Kennedy", when not referring to a specific person or "the Toyotas parked outside". You appear to have a different understanding of "proper name" and this my be at the heart of the matter? I am not opposed to tweaking the wording. I reverted your edit, because I believe it tended to muddy rather than clarify. I did the same to myself for the same reason. Are you then saying that: an "unofficial but well known name, the US Marines (and similarly the Royal Marines), applies not only to the corps, but is also capitalised when used to describe any 'specific' group, formal or informal (or an individual), that belongs to the corps?" Does this then apply to any country, when the name of the country precedes the word "marine|s"? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
We've been over this numerous times before. It's "marine". We don't care what the U.S. Marine Corps internal style is. They don't follow our style guide, and we don't follow theirs.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC); revised: 14:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Law enforcement vs Law Enforcement

Just noticed this issue with several law enforcement related articles and category pages. The parent WP project is Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement which capitalizes the 'E' in enforcement, however there is a mix of capital 'E's and lower-case 'e's when people are adding templates to articles and even when creating category pages. I will post a link to this post on the LE project talk page. FYI - theWOLFchild 23:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

When in doubt, I generally defer to the dictionary[1] as a reasonable neutral arbiter on spelling, capitalization, and meaning of individual words and phrases. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Are there naming and styling conventions for Wikiproject and Template titles? Not that I know of. Category titles are visible to readers, so should be consistent, yes? Looks like they are consistent, lowercase per MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is just another capitalisation conceit sometimes adopted by members of the organisations concerned. Definitely should be lower case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Yep. This is already covered (in the abstract) at MOS:ISMCAPS. We don't capitalize this for the same reason we don't capitalize socialism or method acting or master of arts degree in cultural anthropology. Same goes for the law enforcement community, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
PS: Wikiprojects are just capitalized rather randomly. The closest to a pattern we have is "WikiProject Word-one second-word", but you'll also find "WikiProject Word-one Second-word" (and even capitalization after a hyphen sometimes, like "WikiProject Word-One Second-Word"). The first pattern matches our general page-naming convention, kinda-sorta, but shift the cessation of capitalization to the second word after "WikiProject". We should probably have either "WikiProject word-one second word" to be actually consistent with the rest of the site, or "WikiProject Word-one Second-word" to be consistent with title style for proper names (e.g. WP:Manual of Style, WP:Guild of Copyeditors, and a few other pages). But it's not really an MoS matter.

I think I would resolve it via a mass RM if I were to bother, and what I'd do long before that is move all the wikiproject pages with "members" in their name to use "participants". That's cleanup we did once back in the 2000s, but the wrongheaded notion that wikiprojects are private membership organizations has crept back in, to terrible WP:OWN effect. Might also be worth ditching the camelcase "WikiProject" for "Wikiproject", too.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Guys, I just noticed the discrepancies and thought I'd post an 'FYI'. While I do oppose what appears to be an effort to go to far with all this decapitalization, and said as much in the straw poll, I don't really care if the 'e' in "enforcement" is lower case. I'd just like to see consistency. - theWOLFchild 01:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Clarification of "Titles of people"

I propose the following to clarify a passage in the MOS:JOBTITLES section (my emphasis):

  • When a formal title (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description:
    • Richard Nixon was re-elected President of the United States on November 7, 1972. But, because they are preceded by a modifier: Nixon was the 37th president of the United States. Nixon was one of the more controversial American presidents. Controversial US president Richard Nixon resigned.
    • Louis XVI became King of France and Navarre in 1774, later styled King of the French (1791–1792). But, because they are reworded: Louis XVI was a king of France. Louis XVI was the king of France when the French Revolution began. French king Louis XVI was beheaded.

HopsonRoad (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC) I have put in boldface the proposed added text to what is already there, based on what the first two respondents have replied to.HopsonRoad (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose... While I do agree that over capitalization is an issue, I think your examples are a case of over doing it... of over de-capitalization. I would capitalize most of those. Blueboar (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear, Blueboar, the text is already there, except for "because they are preceded by a modifier" and "because they are reworded". Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose As Per Blueboar. I Think Some People Are Going Over-Board With De-Capitalization Here. - theWOLFchild 16:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I would capitalize most of those also, some of them just look odd not seeing them capitalized. I think Wikipedia has gone overboard on decapitalizations, just as the decapitalizers claim that those of us "traditionalists" (I've been honored by that name recently by a decapitalizer, and accept it gladly) are wrong and should go away, shoo, "find something else productive to do" (another paraphrased recent good faith swipe). For the good of the public image of the encyclopedia I believe that the balance should swing a little more towards capitalization at this point. Things that look normal capitalized probably should be. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Randy Kryn, you appear to be opposing the status quo. That's not what I was bringing to the conversation. I merely added "because they are preceded by a modifier" and "because they are reworded" for clarification. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I was responding to Blueboar's comment as well. If incorrect then we will be outnumbered soon. Maybe just a slight re-edit of the language would clear up confusion. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I find the current position of the MoS on this topic confusing. As with Blueboar and Randy Kryn, it doesn't correspond to what I would do outside the English Wikipedia or what appears right to me, so I need clear guidance. I don't see why the presence or absence of a modifier matters. The suggested wording makes He was re-elected as President of the United States right but He was re-elected as the President of the United States wrong. Why? What about "He was re-elected to the office of [P/p]resident of the United States"? I have no idea whether this is supposed to be capitalized or not. The simplest de-capitalization rule is to capitalize if, and only if, the title is directly used as a title in front of a name, so "President Nixon" but everywhere else "president". Such a rule could actually be followed. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for replying here, Peter coxhead. As I read the guidance, both as given and as proposed for clarification, it would be "...re-elected to the office of President of the United States", since "of" is not a modifier, it merely connotes the genitive or possessive case, nor does it reword the term in question. Likewise "the" is not a modifier, it is a definite article. The term "modifier" I take to be an adjective, which should be made explicit. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. This proposed change is useful in clarifying the examples that illustrate the policy. I see no reason to question the policy: lower case when referring to the office, upper case when using it as a title. Louis XV, a king of France, had the title King of France. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggestion I concur with Peter coxhead that inclusion of "(including a definite or indefinite article)" in the guidance is confusing. I suggest that "adjective" be substituted for "modifier" and the reference to articles be omitted. HopsonRoad (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I disagree: the use of an article, "a king", "the king", implies that "king" refers to the office rather than being part of a title. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Upon further reflection, I disagree with my own suggestion. It would be "He was re-elected as the president of the United States" or "He was re-elected as a president of the United States" because he was elected to an office (president), not a title (President of the United States). HopsonRoad (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
That makes no sense. "He was elected as the President of the United States"... the title is right there, and therefore capitalized (and I'm sure people could debate if "the" should be included and also capitalized, but I'll leave that alone). "Republics, such as the U.S., have presidents as their leaders", is referring generically to the position, and is then lower case. As for "office", the "Office of the President of the United States" (or "Executive Office of the President of the United States") is another proper name/title and therefore capitalized. - theWOLFchild 01:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hi @HopsonRoad, I understand your argument but I am unclear as to exactly what (and how) you wish to change the present guidance and why it is better? Changing any part of the MOS is always going to be problematic. Can I suggest that you take some of these initial comments and reformulate exactly how you wish the guidance to be changed and your case - including any comments to your proposed changes. Can I suggest a strikeout and underline of the exact changes you propose. I have already indicated that any change will meet an almost overwhelming inertia. Be prepared for disappointment but do not feel that you cannot improve WP and the MOS - it is just going to be a difficult process (I have a few bumps and bruises and very little to show for it). Having said that, I still contribute here. I hope this is useful and constructive. Having said that, there were edit conflicts as I posted this that indicate support. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful advice, Cinderella157. I'll wait to see where the wind blows and then propose a final version for re-polling from those, who posted here. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, Garuda28. I'm confused. Is your opposition to the current text—as is the case for Blueboar and Randy Kryn—or to the proposed additional text? The discussion is about the added text, not the existing text. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I think I am thoroughly confused. Is what your saying proposing to the effect of "James was King of England" or "James was king of England"?Garuda28 (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Garuda28. I'm just trying to clarify the existing guidance given at MOS:JOBTITLES with two additional phrases that clarify the examples given. They are shown in boldface at the top of this discussions. That guidance, which existed before this discussion and is not what is being debated here would answer your question as follows: "James was King of England" (referring to his title), but because it is preceded by a modifier: "James was a king of England" (referring to his office). I hope that this helps reduce the confusion that guidance has caused a number of us. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Sadly it doesn't reduce my confusion, because it supports the view that He was re-elected as President of the United States is right but He was re-elected as the President of the United States is wrong and should be He was re-elected as the president of the United States. As I understand it, the core issue is the difference between a title and an office – titles are generally capitalized, offices not – and the presence or absence of a modifier doesn't seem to be particularly relevant. I'd like to emphasize, if it's not clear, that I'm not making points, rhetorical or otherwise; I'm genuinely confused and hoping that useful clarification(s) will be added. Peter coxhead (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Since you got the guidance right, Peter coxhead, suggests that you are less confused than in a state of regret that the guidance isn't easier to follow—a state which is easy to find oneself in! I feel that changing the guidance is a separate and bigger conversation. I'm just trying to help each of us, who came upon it and became confused, to at least understand its current intent. Once this discussion settles, I hope to synthesize all the input given to include examples that clarify the existing guidance. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Sticking to the subject proposal and avoiding distracting and counterproductive tangential discussion:
    I haven't had trouble understanding why the examples are examples of the stated guidelines. But, if some have, I propose converting to a table format rather than adding more prose. Left column: the guideline fragment. Right column: One or more examples of its application. Or, the reverse; either might work, but the point is organization. For a similar example, imagine replacing the tables at MOS:DATEFORMAT with prose. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as draft, but Mandruss's idea would work. A table would resolve the issue with less verbiage (to the extent the issue is real). All the "Well, I would write it as ..." noise is off-topic. This is WP's style guide, not your or my personal one. Every single editor on WP would do at least a few things differently than WP does, and every WP guideline or policy line-item has some editors who don't like it. By this "do it my way" WP:IKNOWIT reasoning, all of our WP:P&G would just get deleted as an imperfect solution according to someone's personal preferences. So, nope.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
"By this "do it my way" WP:IKNOWIT reasoning, all of our WP:P&G would just get deleted as an imperfect solution according to someone's personal preferences" - well we wouldn't that to happen, so I actually agree with you. - theWOLFchild 01:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion for comment

Per Mandruss' suggestion, here is a tabular version of what is present; the headers have a clarification of why:

Revised proposed text

  • When a formal title (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description:
Unmodified, denoting a title Modified or reworded, denoting an office
Richard Nixon was President of the United States. Richard Nixon was the president of the United States.
Richard Nixon was a president of the United States.
Nixon was the 37th president of the United States.
Nixon was one of the more controversial American presidents.
Controversial US president, Richard Nixon, resigned.
Louis XVI became King of France and Navarre in 1774, later styled King of the French (1791–1792). Louis XVI was a king of France.
Louis XVI was the king of France when the French Revolution began.
French king, Louis XVI, was beheaded.

Comments

@HopsonRoad: That wasn't my suggestion, as it has the "guideline fragments" at the top as headings. What I had in mind was to put the entire guideline in the table, not just the "preceded by a modifier" part of it, something along the lines of the tables at MOS:DATEFORMAT. But I haven't the time to put together a mockup, sorry. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I appreciate that I didn't follow your suggestion exactly, but I felt that I adhered to your statement that "the point is organization". The table follows the format of those at MOS:DATEFORMAT more than it does tables in MOS:CAPS. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I like the table format. Fully clarifying the import of the "modifier" part seems to me to need one or more examples that are exactly the same apart from the absence or presence of a modifier. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: See what you think of the above, per your suggestion. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@HopsonRoad: it's certainly clearer. Peter coxhead (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps the example "Nixon was one of the more controversial American presidents" could be improved: "presidents" is both plural and preceded by a modifier. We would do better to have an example that demonstrates the call for lower case just because it is plural. Maybe "Camp David is a mountain retreat for presidents of the United States." Chris the speller yack 17:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Support/non-support

@Blueboar, Thewolfchild, Randy Kryn, Peter coxhead, Aymatth2, OwenBlacker, Cinderella157, Dicklyon, Garuda28, and Mandruss: I have tried to incorporate the feedback received above into the "Revised proposed text" section, above. The core guidance given, is identical to that in MOS:JOBTITLES. This is an attempt to clarify the guidance with a clearer presentation of examples, using a tabular format. Please indicate whether you agree with the approach. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

"French king, Louis XVI, was beheaded", and the others, just seem to look wrong lower-cased. I know it's WP:ILIKEIT, and maybe it's correct in technical terms, but when 'King' and the King's name follow one another in a sentence, upper casing looks and reads better to some of us traditionalists. User:Randy Kryn 20:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
He was a French king called Louis XVI, not the French King Louis XVI as opposed to the German one. I really believe the MOS reflects the style most magazine Editors would instinctively follow. The word "king" is only capitalized when it is part of a title. But the question here is not whether the style rule should be changed, but whether the example should be clarified.Aymatth2 (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
So, Randy Kryn, I gather that your concern is with the guidance given, as opposed to the clarification of what the guidance is. Does that make you an "Abstain"? Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Your chart is fine for the guideline already in place, so will Support that. Thanks for the good work. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
And we would not use "French king, Louis XVI, was beheaded", anyway. That's headlinese. We'd use "the French king, Louis XVI, was beheaded", or "King Louis XVI of France was beheaded", depending on context.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn, Aymatth2, OwenBlacker, Cinderella157, Dicklyon, and Garuda28: Does any of you object to Chris the speller's suggestion to include Camp David is a mountain retreat for presidents of the United States. in the list of lower-case examples, above? He wanted an unmodified, plural example. I ask, because you evinced support for the above Modified or reworded, denoting an office examples. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support, but use vertical-align: top; on the cells. This vertical centring is awful. Anyway, any tweaks to the exact wording can come later; we adjust imperfect wording in MoS all the time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Lower case for plural job titles in page names?

Is the MoS clear enough and stable enough for bold editors (or maybe just me) to make such page moves as "List of Presidents of the United States" to "List of presidents of the United States" because the title is plural? The MoS says "They are capitalized only in the following cases: ... When a formal title ... is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, ..." Chris the speller yack 17:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course, if so many editors ignore some bit of style guidance, perhaps we should accept that the bit of guidance does not actually HAVE consensus. Blueboar (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
You assume that "so many editors" are aware of said style guidance. You can't ignore something you're not aware of. In my experience a very large majority of editors "in the field" don't really care one way or the other, but will observe any guidance they are aware of for the sake of site consistency. I'm speaking as to MOS in general, not as to JOBTITLES in specific. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Right, it's not a lot of editors, but on articles with a lot of interest or emotional baggage, there are sometimes enough to overwhelm the few people who care to speak up for the MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Eurgh, I really hate when people cite "it's broken in so many places" as a reason for not fixing something. Most edits to this site are by bot; there are ways we can fix overwhelming numbers of broken-things if we want to. There's no point having a rule if we decide to ignore it when it might involve some effort. — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

For the masses

A question has come up at Talk:Missa brevis (Bach)#Missa vs. Mass, or mass? – Does one write "Mozart composed several masses" or "Mozart composed several Masses"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

An interesting example came up at Talk:Missa brevis (Bach), we currently have:

and

as actual article titles – seems like one of both has to be converted, no? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree. (ec) - Supporting the questions: long ago, I thought "Masses", to distinguish from physical mass, but the answer then was that the link clarifies that. It makes sense, to be consistent with string quartets and other musical forms, lower case when used generically, upper case when a specific work, "sonatas", but "Cello Sonata". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Former President Xxxxx capitalized?

It's clear to me that, in "Bill Clinton receives Secret Service protection as a former president of the United States", "president" is not capitalized because it it modified by "former". But what about "a film about former President Bill Clinton." Is the existence of the modifier enough reason to use lower case for "president", or is "President" still joined to "Bill Clinton", as part of his name, despite being modified? I'm hoping no one suggests capitalizing "Former" as well, resulting in "a film about Former President Bill Clinton." I don't think "Former President Bill Clinton" is an official title. Chris the speller yack 16:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The correct use is: former President Bill Clinton; where 'former' is an adjective modifying the honorific, 'President,' in this example. Honorifics are titles used immediately preceding a proper name, and would not be capitalized elsewhere, as then they are only job titles or descriptions, which by themselves should not be capitalized. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 18:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Capitals

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Capitals. —GoldRingChip 12:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

RM to consider

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Kshmr#Requested move 21 May 2018, which appears to be testing whether MOS:TM can be applied to a stage name at all if the entertainment press leans towards capitalizing one that is not an acronym as if it were one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Upper case for "fellow"?

It seems not a day goes by but some editor tries to find a way to justify upper case for some rank (military or academic), position, job, title or honor, though the spirit of MOS:JOBTITLES is pretty clear. Do we have to spell out every one of these in the MoS? See Maree Teesson and its talk page, where I am getting hammered for lowercasing "Fellow", among other things (even "Director"!). Of 64 articles that mention "a member of the Royal Society of", "member" is lower case in 63 of them, and upper case in only 1. The word "fellow" is just a (higher?) classification than "member", right? Do we need upper case for "was a Foreign Member of ..." or "was elected a Fellow in 1833"? I think some editors feel that "a Fellow of the Royal Society" is justified because a capital "F" appears in the post-nominal letters "FRS", but "Fellow of the Royal Society" is not a proper name, as it does not refer to a unique person. And upper case is surely not needed for "where he was granted a Fellowship." Chris the speller yack 17:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  • You know, the fact that we “keep getting hammered” about stuff like this should be a red flag telling us that MOSCAPS does not currently reflect the consensus of the broader community. Perhaps we should stop trying to “correct” the broader community, and instead change our guidance. Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not clear what Chris is referring to in "getting hammered". Looks to me like only a few of his changes have been challenged. Dicklyon (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Far from not having consensus in the mostly-undefinable "broader community" (of which we are all a part) these issues are overwhelmingly limited to certain members of "specialist communities" that, for one reason or another, chafe at the idea of existing in the context of a generalist encyclopedia. Primergrey (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Maybe that was a bit too strong, but it felt like being hammered on that one article, where changes were undone despite the advice in MOS:JOBTITLES and MOS:CREDENTIAL, and upper case reapplied to common nouns. Maybe I should just suffer a few slings and arrows and keep on keeping on. Chris the speller yack 22:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
In answer to your question above, no, Fellow is not "just a higher classification" in professional bodies in Australia, UK, and probably other countries.
The issue I raised is "Fellow of the professional body". (Quoting member of the Royal Society is not relevant to this issue/discussion. Nor is the general use of the word fellow.)
One is elected a "Fellow of the professional body" in recognition of one's contributions to the field in which the professional body is active. One is not "granted" or "awarded" "Fellowship of the professional body". Independent of professional bodies, there are other fellowships of warious types which are granted and/or awarded (and/or whatever ) - I'm not referring to these. Depending on context, fellow may be a common noun, but "Fellow of the professional body" is a proper noun. And in Australian English, when referring to "Fellow of the professional body", it might be abbreviated - to "Fellow". In answer to another question, "Fellow of the Royal Society" is indeed a proper name.
I believe the situation may be different in America? It appears to me that this is an American English vs British English and an American English vs Australian English issue. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
In support of Pdfpdf, may I add to this discussion the question why "Fellow" has been changed on some individual pages to "fellow" in the case of those elected FBA? This puzzled me when I saw it the other day. Those elected FBA are Fellow of the British Academy, not fellow of the British Academy. The reason is the same as that succinctly stated at the generic level by Pdfpdf. Flosfa (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I just did a quick search for "elected fellow of the royal society" and "elected fellow of the british academy" and in virtually all cases we find "Fellow", which seems to explain my puzzlement at the changes mentioned. The present incongruity between the pages of the societies and the pages of the individuals is undesirable, as is the incongruity among the pages of individuals. It also seems correct to me what Gaia Octavia Agrippa says in the section on professors: "Articles about British academia should use British English," and it does seem to be the case that British English capitalizes "Fellow" in the case of national academies. (Moving this here from Chris the Speller's talk page, as he advised that the discussion has moved here.) Flosfa (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
This is another example of confusion over British use etc. "Fellow of the Royal Society" is an award. In the same way as "Officer of the Order of the British Empire" is an award, or for the benefit of the Americans who seem to be driving this de-capitalisation, "Presidential Medal of Freedom". Fellow of the Royal Society is a not a job, it is not an office, it is an award. There are different uses for fellow in British English, it can refer to a different types of academics from a post-doctoral fellow to fellows of Oxbridge colleges. In this case it refers to the elected membership of a learned society. Such learned societies also award fellowships in the form of limited-time funding fellowships (eg the British Academy awards the Leverhulme Senior Research Fellowships which funds a year of research but this doesn't make one a Fellow of the British Academy). As Pdfpdf states, Fellow of the Royal Society can be shortened to Fellow: eg, "Smith is a Fellow of the British Academy; he was one of 60 Fellows elected in 2016". This is the same as other awards: eg "Jones was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire in 2002 and promoted to Commander in 2007"; in this case Commander is shortened from Commander of the Order of the British Empire. You are assuming that your local use (ie American English) is the same as everywhere else; it isn't. Simply put, please stop de-capitalising awards/honours just because you don't understand what they are. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 09:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Just to add, the British Academy also annually awards the British Academy Postdoctoral Fellowships, and again, the holders of such fellowships are not Fellows of the British Academy. It does seem to me pretty clear that the case in favor of removing capitals in "Fellow" in the case of British and Australian Fellows of national societies is a mistake. The result is the removal of significant substantial distinctions and as such introduces confusion rather than producing clarity. Flosfa (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I find this persuasive that the title Fellow of the Royal Society needs to be used in Wikipedia rather than the common noun fellow. The latter doesn't say the right thing, unlike in the defining example (from MOSCAP) "president of France".
I don't see any evidence that this is a British English vs American English thing. If it were, then a US newspaper writing about a Fellow of the Royal Society would just call him a fellow, and the argument above makes it clear this would say the wrong thing. If anything, it's a cultural difference between Britain and Australia and the U.S. Perhaps awards like these are less common in the U.S. They're certainly not nonexistent.
It isn't as clear what the scope of this distinction is. Could there be cases where being awarded the title Fellow of an Australian organization simply means the person is a fellow of that organization? If so, WP:MOSCAP says to use the common noun. Some clubs have bylaws that define the title of Member for its members, especially where it's some kind of honor to be accepted as a member. In Wikipedia, we would call that member a member.
Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Having reviewed the n-grams and other sources, I think Fellow should be capped when it's part of an honorary title or award (not in "Fellow of the professional body" generically, but for those professional bodies for which is it consistently capped in sources). I think this is distinct from what WP:JOBTITLE is about. And I don't see a US/UK Engvar split on this. As for myself, of course I cap "Fellow of the ACM" and "Fellow of the IEEE", and most sources do, too. Chris, I appreciate your efforts in trying to apply WP:JOBTITLES more uniformly, but I think this move risks going outside the domain in which we have consensus for its applicability. Dicklyon (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a US/UK Engvar split. I don't feel we have all the answers yet, but we can take a few steps to improve things. I was using AWB rules to lowercase things like "Senior Research Fellow" and "Associate Professor", along with "Fellow", mostly in bios of academics. Of course, some of these folks are likely to also be in learned societies, so the rules changed some cases of "Fellow" where that means a higher rank of a society than "member" as well as cases of "Fellow" where that means a university employee who ranks lower than "professor". These are not always easy to distinguish, but I have discovered that the wording can provide clues: in "He is an elected fellow of the Faculty of Dental Surgery", the word 'elected' tips us off that it's not a job. I found about 500 such articles with "Fellow" and about 500 with "fellow". I think the latter group can be fairly safely be uppercased, if that's what we feel is right. Also, "a Fellow at" is usually a good clue that it can be downcased, while "a Fellow of" usually indicates otherwise. The use of "Faculty" and "Academy" for institutions of learning as well as for professional and learned societies makes things more complicated. Chris the speller yack 21:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with some of this and have issues with some points. I am not aware of any academic institution worldwide in which "Fellow" means a university employee who ranks lower than "professor". Rather, in some British institutions, most well known of them Oxford, every holder of a tenure-equivalent position at the University is a Fellow at (or of) a College, which in addition may have what are called "Junior Research Fellows" or "Postdoctoral Fellows". There is no Oxford professor who is not a Fellow of (or at) a College. To give an example, it seems from their website that all Senior Research Fellows of (or at) All Souls College are Professors at Oxford University. Conversely, all named professors at Oxford University are Fellows at (or of) some Oxford College. So, being a Fellow is not being a university employee ever. It also seems that "Senior Research Fellow" is always spelled with capitals for those at All Souls College, and such Fellows are "elected", and their Fellowships are "of comparable academic standing to a statutory Professorship in the University of Oxford" and the elected Fellows can then apply for the title of professor at the university [2], which it seems they do. (To complicate matters, they also all appear to be members of at least one learned society.) Generally, Fellows at (or of) an Oxford college appear always to be elected by what is called the "Governing Body" of the college, which seems usually to be what is called the "Fellowship" of the college, i.e. the Fellows. So things seem a little more complicated.Flosfa (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid almost all of what you have said Flosfa is wrong. Simply put, Oxford and Cambridge (Oxbridge) are not stereotypical British universities: their structure and academic ranks diverge sometimes considerably from all other universities. Of the Oxbridge colleges, All Souls is the most divergent and is the worst example for explaining the system you could have found. I'll now break down your statements.
I am not aware of any academic institution worldwide in which "Fellow" means a university employee who ranks lower than "professor". - This could be because you are confused about what a professor is in the UK: They are the top level of academics, roughly 10% although it varies by subject, and this is not a general term for all university teachers/researchers. In the UK, fellows can rank anywhere from a doctoral student through to the most eminent academic at the end of their career.
Rather, in some British institutions, most well known of them Oxford, every holder of a tenure-equivalent position at the University is a Fellow at (or of) a College, which in addition may have what are called "Junior Research Fellows" or "Postdoctoral Fellows". - Tenure does not exist in the UK. It would be best to forget all about tenure when discussing British academia: its just confuses things. British academic positions are either permanent (held until retirement or when the academic wants to move on) or temporary (held for a set time period such as one year). Once again, Oxbridge is not typical: they are collegiate universities where each college (eg Trinity College, Cambridge) are self governing independent bodies who mainly undertake the undergraduate teaching, the university departments then mainly undertake postgraduate teaching and research; academics may solely belong to one or the other, but mainly belong to both. The true fellows of colleges (simply titled "Fellow of [name of college]) are the elected (this is a historical hangover and not a democratic vote) members of the the governing body of that specific college: this is further complicated that Christ Church, Oxford calls their Fellows "Students". These fellows can be at the very start of their academic careers (at the end of the doctorate or post-doc) through to those holding Regius Chairs. Junior Research Fellows, for example, may be elected fellows of the college or they may simply be doctoral students who hold a type of scholarship: things are very confusing.
To give an example, it seems from their website that all Senior Research Fellows of (or at) All Souls College are Professors at Oxford University. - Simply put, senior research fellows is the name for professorial fellows at All Souls, and they have almost always held a professorship elsewhere and then moved to All Souls. All Souls is not even a stereotypical Oxbridge college: it has no undergraduate teaching/members and all members (not visiting fellows) of the college are a "Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford" but they also hold different types of fellowships within the college [3]. There are a number of named chairs that are tied to the college and also, because of the stature of SRFs, there are a large number of personal chairs.
So, being a Fellow is not being a university employee ever. - This is so incredibly wrong. You are basing this off Oxbridge or even worse off All Souls College, Oxford. I've already mentioned that there are different fellows throughout British academia. I'll mention a further example which is a clear contradiction of your statement: a teaching fellow is usually someone on a fixed term contract who is employed by a university to undertake the teaching responsibilities of a lecturer/reader/professor who is on study leave; they are not students, they are fully qualified academics. On the other hand, the Fellows of Oxbridge college hold that title through their college: they may or may not also hold department/university positions and may or may not be wholly/partly paid by the college.
"It also seems that "Senior Research Fellow" is always spelled with capitals for those at All Souls College, and such Fellows are "elected"" - They are elected Fellows of the All Souls College, Oxford. The SRF is the title/job they full fill within the academic community of the college and states their rank within the different levels of prestige/experience.
To complicate matters, they also all appear to be members of at least one learned society - It complicates things if you don't understand all the different was "fellow" is used in British academia. However, being a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS), for example, is a an award that shows that you recognised as the top of the top of your scientific discipline (the Royal Society is the UK's national academy for the sciences, the British Academy is for the humanities and social sciences: these are the most prestigious two learned societies but their are others for specific disciplines). These fellowships are awards not jobs, although the Fellows are then involved in electing/selecting other Fellows and can take on leadership roles within the organisations.
Generally, Fellows at (or of) an Oxford college appear always to be elected by what is called the "Governing Body" of the college, which seems usually to be what is called the "Fellowship" of the college, i.e. the Fellows. - This conclusion is basically correct: "Fellows of [Oxbridge College]" form the governing body of that college and they are elected Fellows for historical reasons but actually get the job through the usually application process (CV, interviews, etc) and are then elected as a formality. Have you heard of cooperatives? That's basically how the Oxbridge colleges are run.
In summary: Oxbridge is not typical of what fellows are in British academia, and even within Oxbridge fellow means different things. It requires knowing the system (which is highly complicated) to understand what tank someone is and whether it is a title or job description (and therefore capitalised or not). Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 10:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your enlightening comments Gaia Octavia Agrippa. I'm still unclear though about whether capitals should be used for "Senior Research Fellow" in the case of Fellows of AS. Given your obvious expertise in this area, perhaps you could advise? Flosfa (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Beware slipping into the specialized-style fallacy; it's not how ASC styles it that determines how Wikipedia styles it. Chris the speller yack 17:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Going by MOS:JOBTITLES, senior research fellow, junior research fellow, teaching fellow, etc, are not capitalised, even though you would almost always find them capitalised if you were to look at British sources. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 18:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Many British sources, maybe, but not usually, for instance, the BBC, who don't much go in for capitalisation. Note that you would also see military ranks capitalised in most military sources of all countries. And members of the USMC get all sniffy if "Marine" is not capitalised every time it appears. But we long ago decided not to capitalise these terms. This is not an Engvar issue. It's a stylistic issue within Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, I did give it a go at the All Souls College page. I hope Gaia Octavia Agrippa, Necrothesp and Chris the speller will back me up if I am accused of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flosfa (talk • contribs) 01:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Fellow of the Royal Society, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, etc, etc = Capitalised, just like any other honour which provides postnominal letters. Fellow of a college or university = not capitalised; basically a job title or rank. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I see that Esa-Pekka Salonen says: "In April 2010, Salonen was elected a Foreign Honorary Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences." That looks wholly correct to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Use the caps when it's attached to a name as a title, and when the title is unique and complete ("Foreign Honorary Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences", but "Conference presenters included a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and two fellows of the Royal Academy of Sciences.") Use lower-case when it's a generic noun phrase: "The AAAS has a large fellowship program, and it is growing despite the deaths of various AAAS fellows every year; new fellows are elected faster than extant ones die of old age."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Solar System capitalization

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing duplicate discussion. The same subject (presumably opened by the same anon, given near-identical wording) has been under discussion since 10 May over at the main MoS talk page. This has also been shopped to Talk:Solar System#Requested move 23 May 2018.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

MOS:CELESTIALBODIES says that sun, earth, moon and solar system are capitalized when used in an astronomical context, otherwise they are not capitalized. I am in doubt whether solar system should be capitalized because I can't think of any uses of the term outside of astronomical use. When it is used some sources including the article title on Wikipedia capitalize it. Other sources like Britannica and many dictionaries leave it lowercase. Feel free to discuss your comments here. 75.67.58.188 (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Capitalisation of races

Should racial labels such as "black" and "white" which normally distinguish skin colour as opposed to specific ethnic groups be capitalised? I'd like to hear what the perspective is on this topic from the Stylebook and MOS crowd. --Katangais (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Certainly not usual in British English unless the name comes from a geographical area that is usually capitalised (e.g. Asian, Arab). But black, white, oriental (not considered in any way pejorative in British English, by the way), etc? No. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not "pejorative" in American English, either, just disused and discouraged because it's more often applied to non-sentient objects like rugs and cuisine, and isn't precise, often including the Near East and sometimes even parts of what's usually thought of as Eastern Europe in some context. In short, it's terminology from the era of the Ottoman Empire.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Guideline clarification proposal to curtail MOS:TM vs WP:TITLETM gaming

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks#Minor clarification to avoid interpretational conflict between MOS:TM and WP:TITLETM

MOS:CAPS is also mentioned, though may not need any conforming edits (no specific wording in it has been flagged as problematic in this regard).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Vice President or vice president?

There are huge number of titles in which "vice president" is unnecessarily capitalized. Here is the requested move. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Some of those are unnecessarily capitalized... others are not. But do join the discussion please. Blueboar (talk) 10:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
This has now transitioned to WP:Move review#List of Presidents of the United States.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistency among US state governors & lieutenant governors

I wonder is there any way we can get consistency across those bio article intros of US state governors & lieutenant governors? GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Meh... my reading of the review comments so far is that there isn’t a consensus there either. It could go either way (depending on who closes it). This really does seem to be an issue where the community is evenly split... ie there isn’t a consensus one way OR the other. My guess is that this will continue to be a contentious issue. Blueboar (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Pretty much every style matter is a potentially or actively "contentious issue", for trivial and subjective reasons, until a decision is made. Then it stops being contentious about 99% of the time – and for way more than 99% of editors. In the few cases where people continue to "fight for truth and justice" against MoS or a consensus conclusion about it (RfC, RM, MR, etc.) over some bit of style nit-picking, the activity will be all from a very tiny subset of editors, most of whom overlap from nitpick to nitpick, and who have been at the same WP:TRUTH / WP:GREATWRONGS activity for years. It's almost always predicated on one of three things (or a combination of them): "That's not how specialists in my field do it", "That's not how newspapers I read in my country do it", or "That's not how the off-site style guide I like best does it". I.e., it's refusal to understand and accept that WP has its own style guide. It's very strange, because few of the same people would have any trouble complying the stylesheets of The Economist, The Los Angeles Times, or the journal Nature if they were writing something for publication in one of them. I ascribe it to the fact that WP is community-built; it leads to an occasional misperception that a permissible strategy is "The community must do as I say or I will fight about it until the end of time".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

A move review to consider

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia:Move review#List of Presidents of the United States. It relates to some on-going threads here, one of which has suggested there could be insufficient input so far to reach a clear consensus. Depending on how it turns out, MOS:JOBTITLES might require substantial revision (which might or might not be a good idea, but people who watch this page should be aware of it either way).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Sectional merge discussion open

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Merge MOS:JOBTITLES to this MoS page.

The proposal is to merge WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Titles of people (a.k.a. MOS:JOBTITLES) to WP:Manual of Style/Biographies, where the rest of the material about human titles is (academic, post-nominal, honorific, regnal, etc.). A short summary and hatnote pointer would be left behind in MOS:CAPS (about the same as those presently at found at MOS:CAPS#Occupational titles and pointing to MOS:CAPS#Titles of people; the relationship would simply be reversed).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization, ellipses, and whether an example of a common construction constitutes a quotation

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Ellipsis#"Save As..." style.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

A MOS:ISMCAPS requested move

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes#Requested move 21 June 2018.

Central matter is whether there's a special WP:IAR rationale to capitalize "Communist" in this case, despite MOS:ISMCAPS. (Also under discussion are potential MOS:WTW and WP:NPOV concerns about "regimes", and whether "killings" is the right word, and whether the article needs to be split for WP:NOR reasons, among other issues.)
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Implementing the WP:GAMECAPS RfC (about over-capitalization of traditional sports and games)

The big WP:GAMECAPS RfC closed quite a long time ago with virtually unanimous support, but nothing was actually implemented in the guidelines. So, I implemented a MOS:SPORTCAPS section. In the course of writing it (including what to not lowercase), I realized that the dance material in the music section was identical advice for an identical reason, and that we can forestall a desire to add numerous more subsections about numerous things by generalizing to sport/game/dance-like activities in general. While this is a bit bold, I think the reasoning is quite sound, and the consensus record for what leads to it (both in MoS discussions and in years and years of lower-casing of all these things at WP:RM), solidly supports it.

PS: I also arranged the untidy mess in the whole MOS:CAPS page into alpha order by topic, and adjusted all the "above" and "below" cross-references to compensate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Capitalizing "Professor of X" in articles about British academia?

I have been requested to stop using lower case for "Professor of X" because 'in the UK "professor" is not a job description but a title of distinction.' Even if there were good reasons for such an exception to MOS:JOBTITLES, I think it would open a can of worms; how do you manage using lower case for American professors and upper case for British professors? What about an academic who moves from America to the UK for a while as a "Professor of X" and then moves back? Does he or she then become a "professor of x"? Look at a real case (Michael Eysenck): "Eysenck was a Lecturer and then Reader in Psychology at Birkbeck College University of London between 1965 and 1987. Between 1987 and 2009 he was Professor of Psychology at Royal Holloway College ...". Surely we don't capitalize "lecturer" or "reader" or such a person's area of study, but by this proposal we would have to leave "Professor of Psychology" in upper case? Does the MOS need to treat academic titles any differently from job titles and military ranks? Isn't "Air Marshal" somewhat a title of distinction? What about " an associate professor of classics and ancient history at the University of Warwick"? This all seems very bizarre to me. Chris the speller yack 14:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Who is asking? Our style guide, not to mention Chicago MOS and Oxford's NHT, advise us to minimise capping (i.e., only when judged "necessary"). Last time I looked, job-title boosterism wasn't "necessary". Indeed, it could be argued that it's POV: do we cap "garbage collector", "personal assistant"? And "lecturer" is not a title of distinction, but "professor" is? Where is this person's boundary? As a side note, I've always downcased "Ambassador"—who do these people think they are? Tony (talk) 06:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Tony, I'm with you 100%. See my talk page for the original complaint and a follow-up complaint; perhaps someone needs to read WP:SPECIALSTYLE. I also downcase "Ambassador" and (maybe worse) "Embassy" as well as areas of study ("... she studied History at ..."). Happy editing! Chris the speller yack 15:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I am a capitalization minimalist, and believe that MOS tells us, and should, that when we have a choice of using a job title (which would be capitalized) or the same word as a job description (which would not), then we should prefer job description.
However, there is another issue here. The person arguing against lowercase professor in an article on a British topic says "professor" cannot be used as a job description (in MOS terms, "generically") in British English. He says a job advertisement in the UK would describe the position as lecturer at various ranks, not professor. I don't know British English well enough to comment, but if that's true, it changes things. I wonder what a British faculty member would write for occupation on a census form or loan application. Would a speaker of British English cringe if you added an article or made it plural ("there were three professors in the building")? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
It may be interesting, but it's irrelevant what a professor would write (WP:SPECIALSTYLE). WP would use lower case for "there were three presidents at the funeral" even if the three had each held the title "President of the United States". I can't see how "three professors" needs capitalization or connotes distinction any more than "three presidents" or "two living popes". Chris the speller yack 18:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
It wouldn't. When I was in advertising, we consistently broke the rules of CMOS, because in the advertising business, one wants to draw attention to what is important in the targeted advertising piece. One way to do this is to capitalize what is important to the advertiser. People, businesses, organizations—all tend to want to make that which is near and dear to them seem more important, and will often capitalize these things. An institute of higher learning without teachers—professors, if you will—wouldn't be much of a school, so the tendency is to capitalize that which they feel sets them apart from other similar schools, in this case, professors. Unfortunately for the rest of us in this media-muddled world, this causes confusion in our own writing. The word, "professor", should not be capitalized unless used in the honorific sense (re: Professor Tom). Likewise, the word "professors" should never be capitalized except in the very rare case regarding usage when referring to two or more named professors, such as: "... when Professors Dick and Harry went hiking..." (as opposed to the almost equal: "... when two professors, Dick and Harry, went hiking...") GenQuest "Talk to Me" 18:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
This distinction between "ordinary" use and "special" use may sometimes be conflated with the distinction between descriptive use of common nouns and (non-descriptive) use of naming expressions, which refer to unique entities (e.g "Lucasian Chair of Mathematics" "Lucasian Professor", "Professor of Moral Philosophy". --Boson (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Named chair positions should be capitalised, the academic rank, not. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I would be writing "professors Dick and Harry", as opposed to P. Dick and P. Harry, as I would be writing streets, instead of Street, if more than one were named in such a way. I once found myself editing an academic's bio, where mention of his being made a "University Professor", a high distinction at several American universities, definitely called for it to be capitalized. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I think I definitely disagree with this. Mister Dick and Mister Harry are not Misters Dick and Harry, but Doctors Dick and Harry, Professors Dick and Harry, Assistant Professors Dick and Harry is the use and abbreviation of the title doesn’t lowercase the title. This uncommon but not rare style, like “Harrys Smith and Jones”, never leads to lowercasing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
That's a debate we can avoid, anyhow. Academic and professional titles (such as "Dr." or "Professor") should be used in a Wikipedia article only when the subject is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title (whether earned or not). Primergrey (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I think you missed my point. It isn't what a professor would call his job, or what the school would, but what an ordinary speaker of UK English would. And I don't mean would that person capitalize "professor"; I mean would she use that word at all to describe a job. If "professor" does not exist as a common noun in UK English, then we cannot use it as a common noun in an article written in UK English. Not all titles are also common nouns, like president. How about the top position in the Ku Klux Klan, Imperial Wizard? Is that person really an imperial wizard, or is that just his title? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, "professor" certainly does exist as a common noun in UK English: collinsdictionary.com shows some difference between American professors and UK professors, but shows them both in lower case. And nothing in this MoS indicates that "high distinction" calls for upper case. Chris the speller yack 00:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. Original complainant here (female by the way). I am very busy right now so its is going to be brief. In British English processor is not the general description for a university teacher, professors are the top of their game and have either been granted a named chair (Chichele Professorship) or a personal professorship (Professor of Statistical Science). This makes them known as Professor X rather than Dr/Mr/Ms X. My issue is the removal of capitalisation of the titles changes the meaning and is based on an American English understanding rather than British English, eg Professor of Classics vs professor of classics. Professor of Classics in the UK is as Chichele Professor of Economic History: they are in the same vein as "President of the United States". Of cause professor can be lowercase; "a meeting of presidents" and a meeting of professors" (this would refer to holders of professorships and not a group of various academics/lecturers/fellows/etc). More examples: "Smith moved to the University of Y having been appointed a professor there" or "Smith was appointed Professor of Maths at University of Y", but not as "Smith joined the University of Y as professor of maths". Associate/assistant professor posts in the UK are not professorships, do not let the holder use the title professor, and do not need to be capitalised: they are American English imports that are used to help equate the jobs across a global market. In short, all British "full" professorships should be capitalised when written in full: not capitalising changes the meaning. This is an issue of using British English in British English articles. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
A different example: American English uses Dr. and Jr. but British would use Jr and Dr. It would be incorrect for a Brit to go onto articles written in American English and "correct" these differences. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
This is not an issue of using BrEng in British-subject articles. This is an issue of, in potentially the same article (regardless of its Engvar), writing about American university "professors" and British university "Professors". Primergrey (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
This is an issue of British English as there is an attempt with this to ignore local language use and introduce the American use (and therefore meaning) of professor into British English articles. If an article uses both, say a British academic moves to the US or visa versa then I don't see what's wrong mixed-use. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 09:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
"The person arguing against lowercase professor in an article on a British topic says "professor" cannot be used as a job description (in MOS terms, "generically") in British English. He says a job advertisement in the UK would describe the position as lecturer at various ranks, not professor." No, that's not true. An established chair would be advertised at professorial rank. See below. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Necrothesp, (I've already stated I'm female, easy to check on my user page), not what I've said. Professor is not the general term for (teaching) academics in the UK, it is in America. The standard job description is lecturer in the same way that the job description in schools is "teacher" regardless of whether they are trainee teachers through to headmasters. In the UK a professor is at the top of the pile of academics rather than the word used to reference all university academics. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 09:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I was merely quoting what someone else wrote, which claimed that is what you said. If you didn't then that's fine. Yes, I'm aware you're female. Again, that was just quoted text. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for jumping the gun, I read it too quickly to see where the quote ended! Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 10:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a case for capitalising the phrase only if the individual holds an established chair. There are two types of chair (or professorship) in British universities: established chairs and personal chairs. Established chairs are actual positions established by the university statutes and always in existence. A holder is appointed (or elected) to, say, the Chair/Professorship of Psychology at the University of Oxford (this is purely an example). It would then be reasonable to write that "Foo was Professor of Psychology at the University of Oxford" (although the capitalisation would not be obligatory). However, the majority of professors hold personal chairs. That is, they have been promoted to professorial rank for their experience, but do not hold an established chair. They may be a professor of psychology (i.e. an academic in the psychology department who holds professorial rank), but they are not the Professor of Psychology. There is a big difference, and holders of personal chairs will often apply for an established chair when it becomes vacant as it is more prestigious. Holders of personal chairs are still professors (in the more exclusive British sense), of course, and may use the title. Note that even most established chairs in the UK, unlike in the USA, are not "named", and it can often be difficult to distinguish who holds an established chair and who a personal chair. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Nope. There isn't a difference in the title they are awarded and it is the (de)capitalisation that is an issue here. If they are appointed an established Professor of Psychology that is the title of distinction they have been awarded; it is a set phrase that can't be reduced to something else and have the same meaning. Likewise, if someone is awarded a personal chair as Professor of Psychology, that is the title. "Smith was appointed Professor of Psychology at University Y, thereby becoming the second female professor to be appointed in 2017" would be the prasing regardless of whether its a personal or established chair. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 09:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but that is not true. Someone awarded a personal chair is not appointed Professor of Psychology. They still officially hold the post to which they were originally appointed. For example, someone could be appointed to a Lecturership in Psychology. They could then be promoted to senior lecturer, reader and finally professor after a long time in the post. They could perfectly legitimately call themselves Professor of Psychology in their CV, on their webpage, etc, but their post at the university would technically still only be Lecturer in Psychology as that's the established post to which they were appointed many moons ago. They could of course apply for an established senior lecturership, readership or chair, but a personal chair (or readership etc) is just that, personal. It's just a promotion within the department, not a change in title. Yes, it is true that some professors with personal chairs use very specific titles and these are acknowledged by the university, but that's more a descriptive term than a formal title and rarely has a basis in actual university statutes; they just describe what they specialise in. Your Professor of Early Modern Ecclesiastical History may still actually only formally hold a Lecturership in History and when he retires or moves on it's the Lecturership in History that will be advertised. I certainly don't think capitalisation is necessary or even really desirable. Having said that, it probably doesn't need to grow into a huge issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Some confusion here. The argument I am making is that in the UK "Professor of X" should always be capitalised because that is a formal title as per the MOS, "When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself". You've said; "that's more a descriptive term than a formal title". However, personal chairs involve the awarding of a title, that's where the "Professor of X". For example, Newcastle University requires The Proposed title of the Personal Chair is to be recorded on the Candidate's Statement, Edinburgh stipulates The title of a Personal Chair will reflect either the detailed research area of the appointee or, for a Chair of Student Learning, will take the form Professor of Student Learning (Name of Subject), and Oxford asks and states The preferred precise title which you think would be appropriate, e.g. Professor of English Literature, Professor of Engineering Science. The title should be as concise as possible. Final decisions on the precise titles to be conferred on successful applicants will be made by the University. I agree about the substantive lectureship: lecturer is the standard academic rank in the UK, not professor. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 10:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I think now we are really getting somewhere. Do we need an "established chair" template to mark cases where WP should tolerate upper case, as in "Foo was {{established chair|Professor of Psychology}} at the University of Oxford"? I'm only half kidding. Chris the speller yack 04:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I should also point out that historically almost all chairs were established chairs. It's only in the last few decades that personal chairs have become common and professors have proliferated at universities. Probably until at least the 1960s or 1970s, most university departments only had a single professor who held an established chair. Now, a large history department, for example, may have half a dozen academics of professorial rank who are described as "professor of history", but it is still likely that only one of those will actually hold an established chair. Really large departments may have several, of course. For instance, the University of Cambridge now has nine established Professors of Education, distinguished internally by adding the year of establishment after the title (e.g. the Professor of Education (2005)). However, until 1996 there was only one established Professor of Education, now officially known as the Professor of Education (1938). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Clashes over this can be avoided by preceding "Professor of Classics" with "the" when it is definitely an established chair, or by using a confuse-a-bot template "Foo was {{text|Pro|fessor of Classics}} at the University of Oxford"; I guess we really don't need a new template just for established chairs. Chris the speller yack 17:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
There is not a difference in the capitalisation of different types of chair: they still award a specific title rather than it being a general job description. It should be noted that the only people who use Professor Z in the UK are those who have been appointed to a chair and therefore awarded a professorial title, it then replaces Mr/Ms/Dr/etc. If someone has been appointed to a personal chair as Professor of 18th-Century British History (some chairs are highly specific), this title couldn't be reduced to professor of history without losing meaning in multiple ways: removing the capitalisation removed the fact that this is a specific title awarded to that person. In the UK "Professor of History" would be a title not a job description, "a professor in the department to history" would be a general description of their appointment. The specific title bit (in the UK use of professor/British English) that comes with a chair falls under the third bullet point of MOS:JOBTITLES: "When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description" and is therefore capitalised. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 09:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I think a difficulty could be in how you define "a formal title for a specific entity". Even some Americans are able to grasp that there is one specific person who is the Lord Mayor of London, but probably lots of people on both sides of the pond, seeing several professors of history at one university, will have trouble conceiving of "Professor of History" as one specific entity. Chris the speller yack
Simply put, the format "Professor of X" is the formal title, and I suppose the specific entity would the personal/established chair that that individual has been appointed/elected to. Would an American be a confused that there is both a Lord Mayor of London and a Mayor of London? The difficulty is that "Professor of History" in the UK means something a little different to "professor of history" in the US. However, it isn't right to "correct" things just because different language variations/countries use the same words/phases differently. For example, the Chancellor of Germany is the equivalent of a prime minister in other countries, the Chancellor in the United Kingdom is the equivalent of a finance minster: this doesn't mean that things are reworded because someone from a different country may get confused at this different use. It was once the case that personal chairs were more specific, you would see a Professor of Early Morden History, a Professor of the History of the Crusades, and a Professor of History (the latter being the established chair) in a department. Even if they are now all titled Professor of History is doesn't change the fact that that specific phrase is their formal title, not a job description. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 18:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
You do still very frequently see titles like that. But see above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
For examples of overly specific awarded in recent years: Edinburgh, including the rather cool sounding "Tissue Engineering" and the Wiki article on Titles of Distinction awarded by the University of Oxford. "Titles of Distinction" is Oxfors's name for personal chairs/professorships. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 10:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
See the article David Rueda. How to clean up when it has both "a Professor of X" and "a professor of x" at Oxford? The use of the indefinite article makes it look more like a job and less like the title of a specific entity. I have learned enough by now to leave it alone, but I wouldn't jump all over an editor who lowercased the "Professor of X" occurrence. Should the indefinite article be removed for "Professor of X" at Oxbridge? Also, are there any Australian/NZ universities, such as UNSW, that get the Oxbridge treatment? Chris the speller yack 17:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Simply put, it should be "Professor of X" not "a professor of x". The opening sentence introduces confusion because it uses professor as a job description. A better wording wording be: David Rueda is a political scientist who is Professor of Comparative Politics at Nuffield College, University of Oxford. Its also not just Oxbridge related biographies/articles that should use "Professor of X" but all British university related ones. Those universities using the British system, eg Australian universities, would assumedly have the same practice. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 10:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
This is basically correct for the UK, and I fully agree with the need to distinguish titles from job descriptions. The slight complication is that there are people whose titles are the same as their job descriptions: the Professor of Computing Science in my department is also a professor of computer science. The Professor of Medical Imaging is a professor of computer science. The Reader in Theoretical Computer Science is a reader in computer science. It seems a simple enough distinction to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Use lowercase per MOS:JOBTITLES (which isn't super-strictly only about job titles in a narrow sense). Capitalize only a) when it's a attached to a name, as in "according to Professor David J. Farber"; and b) when referring to a specific unique endowment or other position by its complete name ("David J. Farber was appointed Distinguished Career Professor of Computer Science and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, and previously the Alfred Fitler Moore Professor of Telecommunication Systems at the University of Pennsylvania"; but "David J. Farber has been a professor of computer science, public policy, and telecommunication systems at various US universities." We've been over this many times before, too.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
That makes perfect sense to me. --KeeYou Flib (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Not really. It may in America, where almost all full professors do hold a named chair, but the Professor of Education (1938) at the University of Cambridge (where the 1938 is usually only used in internal documents) is every bit as much a "specific unique endowment" as the Alfred Fitler Moore Professor of Telecommunication Systems at the University of Pennsylvania. Not having a convoluted title featuring the name of a donor does not make the title any less unique or specific. This is always the problem with the interpretation of WP:NACADEMIC #5. And it makes no sense to fully capitalise one but not the other. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC on the treatment of organizational colors

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Milwaukee Bucks#RfC for team colors

This is really beyond the Milwaukee Bucks or even sports in particular, and relevant to coverage of organizations and their house styles generally. This touches on all of: MOS:CAPS, MOS:TM, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, in various aspects (see the more detailed discussion below the !vote section).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Spider-Man: Far From Home naming discussion

Additional editors are requested to discuss if the "from" in Spider-Man: Far From Home should be capitalized. The discussion is here Talk:Spider-Man: Far From Home#From or from?. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Events and eras missing (or at least not organized and generalized)

One enormous gap here is capitalization versus lower-casing of events, sequences of events, and time periods. We're touching on it in a few places, but we're largely just ignoring it, and a consequence is that it's a frequent source of dispute (and unusually recurrent disputes) at WP:RM.

The current practice, often fought over tediously, is that WP does not apply capital letters unless sources do so with overwhelming consistency for the exact case in question, as with other capitalization matters. But various editors are highly resistant to accepting this as applicable to events and periods, and our consistency about this has been eroding due to what I call the "fan-capping" problem (people with an intense interest in a particular event or era will argue strenuously for over-capitalizing it on a WP:ILIKEIT basis, and try to warp WP:COMMONNAME into a style policy, which it is not, as if MoS didn't exist and wasn't deferred to on style matters by the WP:AT policy and the NC guidelines).

The result is that in general, we have lower-case for things like Victorian era, the civil rights movement (one of the most perennially contentious), innumerable wars and conflicts that do not have a single, consistent proper name in English (just various descriptive labels), most arts genres and movements, and so on. And we have some conventionalized exceptions, like very large arts movements (Art Nouveau, etc., and sweeping eras in geological, biological, and even human (e.g. Neolithic, Iron Age) scale, and wars and other events given a consistent proper name in off-site sources in English.

But we also have strange (generally undiscussed) exceptions dotting the wiki-landscape. E.g., Neolithic Revolution, which is not consistently capitalized in reliable sources, especially if you look carefully at mid-sentence versus title and heading usage [4]. The lead at that article says: "The Neolithic Revolution, Neolithic Demographic Transition, Agricultural Revolution, or First Agricultural Revolution, was the ...". That's basically a trainwreck of over-capitalization. You'll see the same sort of thing if you go to Agricultural revolution (disambiguation) and look in all the articles listed there.

In various places we have the following in MoS:

  • MOS:ISMCAPS: "Spiritual or religious events are capitalized only when referring to specific incidents or periods (the Great Flood and the Exodus; but annual flooding and an exodus of refugees)."
  • MOS:SPORTCAPS: "Specific titles and events (or series thereof) are capitalized: WPA World Nine-ball Champion, Tour de France, Americas Cup. Generic usage is not: a three-time world champion, international tournaments. None take italics or other special markup."
  • MOS:CAPS#Geological periods: "The names of formally defined geological periods and the rock layers corresponding to them are capitalized. Thus the Devonian Period or the Late Cretaceous Epoch are internationally defined periods of time, whereas the late Cretaceous is an unspecified time towards the end of the Cretaceous. Do not capitalize outside a complete formal name: thus the Devonian is a period rather than the Devonian is a Period."
  • MOS:GEOUNITS: An example is provided: "In the medieval period, the City was the full extent of London." The "medieval period" example is significant, especially the the main point of the example is that sometimes exceptions can apply to our usual lower-casing.
  • MOS:SMALLCAPS: Barely relevant: "Some uses of small caps that are common in the house styles of particular publishers are not used on Wikipedia; the most common are for Roman numerals (use XIV, not XIV) and for acronyms for eras (use BCE, AD, etc., not BCE, AD)." Pretty much just a side-point about unusual orthography.
  • MOS:ERA (at MOS:NUM) gives potentially misleading advice: "Phrases such as Fourth of July (or July Fourth, but not July 4th), Cinco de Mayo, Seventh of March Speech and Sete de Setembro are proper names, to which rules for dates do not apply (A typical Fourth of July celebration includes fireworks)." This can be mistaken for a declaration at all dates or events with designations are proper names (in the relevant, linguistic sense), when it only means that for cases in which a stock phrase uses an ordinal we don't apply MOS:NUM's anti-ordinals rule. The wording there should be changed to not say "proper names".
  • WP:NCCAPS: Faintly relevant: "a French expression can be adopted in English (such that you'll find it in English dictionaries), but with a different capitalization: Art Nouveau is how the name of a certain art movement is most often written in English; but art nouveau is how it is written in French." Relevant because some artistic movements in the broadest sense are more entire periods of art history than movements per se; while Art Nouveau doesn't qualify, the key point here is trusting dictionary references.

This can probably be collated and summarized into something general. We need a clear explanation why some of these things are permissibly capitalized and some are not.

I'm the first to say that if MoS doesn't already include something it probably doesn't need to. In this case, however, we already have scattershot advice in different places, not all of it necessarily consistent, and we do have a strong RM record, just not a perfect one. It's worth consolidating this into a single, clear paragraph or bullet list, then cross-referencing it from the other locations.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on fandom-based over-capitalization

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#The endless "fan-capping" problem
How are MOS:CAPS, etc., failing to get the point across?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is that MOS:CAPS (etc) is "failing to get the point across" ... I think the problem lies elsewhere: 1) we have so many style guidelines that a lot of editors are overwhelmed, and don't bother to read them. It does not matter how well we make the point, if no one bothers to read it. 2) A sizable minority of editors actually disagree with what our guidelines currently say. These editors are intentionally ignoring our guidance. Again, it does not matter how well we make the point... since these editors are not going to pay any attention to it in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar in that I don't think there is a failure to get the point across. I also agree with his first point, that many editors do not know that these style guidelines exist. That, I presume, is not because they went to a MOS page and didn't get the relevant information, but because they didn't know there was a MOS page to go to. As far as his second point, though, to take as a given that everyone who disagrees with a point of MOS guidance will "intentionally ignore" it, is an overgeneralization at best. Many editors are mature enough to understand that, although it will not always go "their" way, consensus represents a standard agreed upon by the same community that they have chosen to be a part of. That said, everyone is explicitly free to write in whatever style they prefer, but when reverting edits that bring articles in line with style guidance, editors will find that some guidelines are not so easily ignored. Primergrey (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

A move review of potential interest

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 October#World Heritage site (a request to move back to "World Heritage Site"). The suggestion has been made there that "the consensus of the community" has changed in favor of increased capitalization (and, e.g., that the overturning of a Syrian Civil War → Syrian civil war RM, not on its merits but just to a no consensus result, is somehow evidence of this). I'm not really sure what to make of it (and have been almost entirely absent for several months), so I think further input is warranted from editors who analyze capitalization matters regularly. Especially given the amount of relitigation happening in this MR. It's supposed to focus on whether the closer erred in coming to a no consensus call in this World Heritage case.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters/Archive_27&oldid=1045688816"