Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 37

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Amendment of guideline for capitalizing foreign personal names

The current text reads (MOS:PERSONAL):

I propose to amend this as follows:

This proposed text could be made more concise by relegating details like the examples, the reference to WP:ABOUTSELF, and the exception referred to in "almost always" ("apostrophed" contractions like d' (French) and 't (Dutch)) to footnotes.

Motivation: This proposal is the result of a discussion in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anthroponymy#Capitalising_or_omitting_words_in_Dutch_surnames. To recapitulate the main points in that discussion: The current text of the guideline undoubtedly already intends to promote the observance of capitalization conventions, as used in the countries of origin of the bearers of foreign personal names. Unfortunately, such conventions are very often honored in the breach by unsuspecting Anglophone Wikipedia contributors. It was suggested that this resulted from lack of information about the conventions, and the substitution of "good-faith" guesses by the authors. As an illustration I'd like to use the "Dutch case". The paradigm of a Dutch surname is: "Zero or more (separable) family-name affixes, followed by one or more nouns (possibly intermingled with more affixes)". The "main rule" is that the first affix (if present) is capitalized (but none of the other affixes), as are all following nouns. Example: Van der Duyn van Maasdam. There are four exceptions to this rule: the first affix is not capitalized if the surname is preceded by one or more given names, one or more initials, a title of nobility (but not predicates of nobility, like Jonkheer/vrouwe), or another family name (mainly in married names of Dutch women). (Cf. "Persoonsnamen". woordenlijst.org (in Dutch). Nederlandse Taalunie. Retrieved 12 February 2023.; the guidelines for Dutch language issues and the contents of this useful website are at "Inhoudsopgave". woordenlijst.org (in Dutch). Nederlandse Taalunie. Retrieved 19 February 2023. Tip for almost everybody but Dutch speakers: Google Chrome has a new feature that makes translating webpages from Dutch into English a cinch.) Examples: Frans Adam Jules Armand (F.A.J.A) van der Duyn van Maasdam, general Herman baron van Voorst tot Voorst , Jonkvrouwe Ella Quarles van Ufford-van Heemstra Unfortunately this exception is in many Wikipedia articles apparently taken for the rule as stand-alone Dutch surnames with affixes are used without capitalization. Randomly selected examples: "van Leeuwenhoek" instead of "Van Leeuwenhoek" and "de Zuylestein" instead of "De Zuylestein". It should be admitted that a distinguished historian like Simon Schama (who we certainly recognize as an otherwise "reliable source") makes the same mistake consistently in his "Patriots and Liberators" for instance, but this is of course no justification, as the mistake is easily avoided if one just takes care to obtain the relevant information. The amended version of the guideline may help with this. We have tried to generalize this beyond just the "Dutch case" to other languages, as the problem may also exist for surnames existing in those languages (where the capitalization conventions differ, even between Belgium/Flanders and the Netherlands which share the same language). The U.S. is a special case, as this country has many immigrants of foreign descent, who routinely flout the capitalization conventions from their country of extraction. Of course, in this case the "American" capitalization should not be corrected with the country-of-origin capitalization conventions in hand. The "own preference" guideline should prevail here.

About the technical term "separable family-name affix": I would love to provide a wikilink, but the term currently is redirected to Separable verb and that article does not contain information on "separable affixes", even though the principle is the same. Maybe somebody could put in an edit? To prove I didn't invent the term myself, Wiktionary has an entry. See separable affix.

It was only briefly touched upon in the above-mentioned discussion, but a (sneaky) way out of the conundrum would be to simply omit the affixes in an abbreviated version of the surname. Simon Schama uses this policy to good effect in Rembrandt's Eyes (1999), where he uses only the nouns in the surnames of a long list of painters with van der in their surname (after first properly introducing the full personal name), as enumerated (incorrectly capitalized) under the letter "V" in the index of the book. There is no objection in itself to such a policy, but only if it is not used to shirk one's responsibility for proper capitalization. In fact, the policy is widely used in the literature in biographical articles and historical vignettes. Examples: Orange, Oldenbarnevelt and Zuylestein. But one should be circumspect: Gerard Reve preferred it, but his brother Karel not so much. And in some cases, for reasons that remain nebulous to me, except that it is "not done", it is an actual "taboo": Vincent van Gogh is never called simply "Gogh", and Johan de Witt never "Witt. With this in mind I propose (on my own responsibility) the following addendum to the above amendment (possibly as another footnote)

Ereunetes (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

TLDR. Which is not a quality one desires in a manual of style. Aim for greater concision. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Did you mean TL;DR? I think reading it is the least one could ask. Anyway, I proposed to relegate an appreciable part (TBD) of my proposed text (that is the text in the "talk quote blocks", not my explanation of it) to footnotes. That should make it much more concise. Oh, but you didn't read that. Ereunetes (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

For anybody interested in using the new Translate feature in Google Chrome: make sure you have the latest update of the browser. When you encounter a web page in a foreign language, not the same as your default language, highlight a section in the text (in my experience it need not be the entire page) and right-click it (not necessarily on the highlighted section; in my own experience it works best if one right-clicks just outside of the highlighted section). A dropdown menu will appear. Select "Translate to [default language]".The original text will almost instantly be replaced by a translation into your default language. There will be a box enabling you to toggle between the original language and your default language.--Ereunetes (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course there's an objection to dropping affixes just for brevity. You might use a famous "stage name", but one does not mangle names. Placing Dutch names in alphabetic order goes as follows: Reve; Reve, van het. Gerard van het Reve shortened his name as a stage name, which was made official in later years. It took a Royal Decree to leave out the "van het". Kees van Kooten and Wim de Bie mocked it by calling themselves "Koot & Bie" one television season. De Witt would never be a good option, because it would be confusing as both Johan and his brother Cornelis had fame at the same time. In a text about one of the brothers, you could use De Witt. You only get rid of the "De" if it is official, like Katarina Witt. Emmarade (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I feel your pain. I am no big fan of dropping the prefixes like "van" and "de" myself. But when I have to choose between having an undercase "van" and no "van" at all, I opt for the latter. As I wrote in a post elsewhere in this discussion, Simon Schama dropped all prefixes (after he first introduced the full name of the painter) of Dutch painters he treated in Rembrandt's Eyes. That is one approach. Alfred Thayer Mahan consistently calls Michiel de Ruyter "Ruiter" in his The Influence of Sea Power upon History, even though he was a great fan of De Ruyter. So what can one do besides gnash one's teeth? But the recommendation to drop the prefixes has itself been dropped from the proposed amendment a long time ago. Please see the latest iterations far below in this discussion. So the subject is moot. Ereunetes (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

When I was writing my book, I spent a lot of effort trying to get the caps right, on names like Van De Water, van de Geer, and van der Heijden. Perhaps I messed up, as I never discovered that rule about when to cap that first "van" or whatever. But I did find a Van der Pol resonator and Van der Pol equation by one van der Pol, or so I thought. My deductions of the underlying logic didn't quite get to the right place, it appears. Publisher was little help. So, yes, we need to include this some place. Make a concise version with footnote or link to more info, and maybe it will fly. Dicklyon (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I think you should try my little trick with Google Chrome Translate to look at the Nederlandse Taalunie citations; that may help you in future, not just for capitalization issues, but for Dutch orthography issues in general. To come to your remark: I will try to comply with your request in the near future. I already indicated a few topics that are ripe to be "footnoted" in my explanation above. I would add that the enumeration of "name" articles is superfluous since I discovered that they are already enumerated in the Surnames by country article, which I had overlooked before. Also the alternatives for "family-name affixes" as a technical term should be in a footnote, though I think it is unwise to completely leave them unmentioned, as some people who contributed to the "name" articles may be "invested" in them, and the "affix" technical term is not mentioned in those articles. Finally I added the citation for the Chicago MOS reference just now. This should be a reference. But ultimately what should be left in, put in footnotes, or completely scratched, is a matter for discussion. So I prefer to wait a while, before I commit myself. Ereunetes (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of Dutch names, I remain fascinated by the Dutch vowel "ij" and the original Mac-ASCII characters ÿ (and uppercase IJ and Ÿ). Iirc, the Mac included the characters ÿ and Ÿ because someone thought they were needed or useful in writing western European languages, but I had a hard time finding anyone who would use them. When visiting Holland, I noticed signs like "ijs" or "ÿs" (which look alike in cursive handwriting, which is what I was working on at the time), and met people with that vowel in their name. I asked van der Heijden about it, but he didn't really clarify anything. I did also find a name with Ÿ carved in the floor of Amsterdam's Old Church, which I think is the only place I've ever seen it. I supposed everyone is happy wiht ij and IJ (like IJzebrand Schuitema), so I should try to forget about all this. Dicklyon (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I hope you intended "Van der Heijden"? :-) As to the "Dutch Y" or "IJ" character: when they still had mechanical typewriters, the ones sold in the Netherlands had an "ij" key in which the two letters were connected. That saved one keystroke, so nowadays no one bothers anymore. As it happens my own "real" surname has an "ij" in it. People with almost the same surname have an "y", or even an "i" in that space. It is all pronounced the same, because the "vowel" is almost silent in our names and acts more like a consonant. The Dutch language is full of snares and bear traps like this. Because in words like hij (he) and het IJ (two capitals and not "het Ij"; the name of the river north of Amsterdam) the vowel sounds almost (though not quite) as the "i" in English "high" or "sigh". Please don't forget about "all this" though. You can't imagine how flattered I am with your interest. If you have specific questions, please ask. Ereunetes (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Concise version with footnotes

I hope this satisfies the people that asked for "conciseness".--Ereunetes (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Would it not be far easier (and briefer) to simply say that we should follow how the names are styled by sources written in high-end sources (who will generally get it right). Blueboar (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
It would indeed be easier if "high-end sources" generally did get it right. But they don't always. Take my example above of Sir Simon Schama in "Patriots and Liberators" and "Rembrandt's Eyes" who consistently got it wrong. Jonathan Israel on the other hand consistently got it right in "The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness and Fall, 1477–1806" (both according to the guidelines of the Taalunie that I referenced). Let us take the case of Joan Derk van der Capellen tot den Pol as an example. Schama's "Patriots and Liberators" and Israel's "Dutch Republic" overlap on the period in which Van der Capellen played a role: the Patriottentijd. At the first mention of Van der Pol Schama writes among others on page 65: "As a matter of plain fact, van der Capellen lacked the native property qualifications for admission...", so a flouting of the main rule that a Dutch surname in isolation starts with a capital letter. On the other hand, Israel writes on p. 1098 of "Dutch Republic: "The moment of disaster, according to Van der Capellen ...", a correct application of the same main rule. Fortunately, the author of the Wikipedia article also correctly applies the main rule. But how is one to decide between the three? The first two are both reputable British historians. But Israel (not necessarily a linguistic prodigy) apparently paid better attention to the Dutch primary sources he studied. Believe me, there is no acceptable alternative to the high road I advocate (and this concerns not just Dutch surnames, but other languages also). Ereunetes (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Whenever I'm in doubt about the capitalization or defaultsort property of a name with "van", I consult van (Dutch). May be MOS:PERSONAL could refer to that article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
A very good suggestion! I had found the Van (Dutch) article myself, but had lost track of it. But it does give a good explanation of the Dutch rules, as far as the voorvoegsel "Van" goes; there are other separable affixes though, like De and Ter. So it is not just about "Van". However, I think it wise to be consistent in this proposed amendment, and refer to the article that is mentioned in Surnames by country. Nevertheless, I'll put a wikilink to the Van (Dutch) article in the Dutch name article. Ereunetes (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I support a clarification of how to capitalize especially Dutch names, and agree that Ereunetes is on the right track here. It might be wise to start over with a neutral yes/no RFC on a specific proposal if it's not obvious what we're converging on here. I'm OK with the version in green above. Are others? Dicklyon (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Fine, although the articles to be cross-referenced could include Nobiliary particle and specifically von. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
I put in Nobiliary particle underneath my reference to particule in my proposal above (conform the way French name itself treats it) Please click on the wikilink to check. I was trying to be "concise". Von could be mentioned in the same context. Ereunetes (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
To some extent, this looks to me like a solution looking for a problem. As with everything in Wiki, our decisions are source based. The solution is to use the form that predominates in sources, except for living people, where we tend to give preference to the persons own choice (within reason). Perhaps the guidance could be improved but it should remain both brief and simple and I don't think the proposal does this. The only real issues are capitalisation of the surname at the start of the sentence and whether (and when) it is appropriate to drop part of the surname - noting that on the first mention, the name should be given in full. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I beg to disagree. As I replied to Blueboar, not all sources are reliable in respect of orthography. Besides, in a number of countries capitalization of proper names is a matter of official regulation, not of private whim as in the U.S. So, even if the form of capitalizing Dutch proper names that predominates in the English Wikipedia is to leave family-name affixes lowercase, that doesn't make it right. To the informed eye it just looks uneducated. I agree in principle that the guidance should be "brief and simple", but that doesn't mean it is OK if it is balderdash, like this quote in the current text of MOS:PERSONAL:"As proper nouns, these names are almost always first-letter capitalized. An exception is made when the lowercase variant has received regular and established use in reliable independent sources." No, in the case of Dutch surnames, the exceptions are well-regulated by public authority, regardless of what "independent sources" may think.Ereunetes (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
While I do understand that individual sources (even high end ones) can get a name wrong, that can be offset by examining multiple high end sources and seeing how they present the name in the aggregate. Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Blueboar, you beat me to it!. Yes, the consensus in sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I should try a parable to show the advantages of my approach. Assume a novice wiki biographer who wants to write (another) biography of the mother of Audrey Hepburn, the baroness Ella van Heemstra, and is interested in the capitalization of her married name in her first marriage. They (the novice) only know that married name in lowercase: jonkvrouwe ella quarles van ufford - van heemstra. The novice now looks for guidance and finds the current form of MOS:PERSONAL. This amounts to saying:"You are on your own, squire; go live for a year among the Capitalizationists and try to infer from their contradictory mutterings what it should be. " This is not particularly helpful and may well discourage the novice. My alternative approach assumes that the novice wants to do what so many want: "look it up on Wikipedia". Of course, they could lookup Capitalization and look under "Special cases". There is some relevant info under "Compound names" (which is a misnomer, by the way). But the novice wants more. Back to MOS therefore. What I propose is the following search algorithm:
start at Surnames by country and search for a likely article (as the novice knows that baroness Ella was Dutch, they will not go far wrong if they click on Dutch name);

peruse the contents (left column) of that article and their eye will come to rest on the heading tussenvoegsel, which is already familiar from the guideline.

alight on that section and imbibe its contents; then glean whatever information about capitalization of Dutch personal names with tussenvoegsels seems relevant. That is quite a lot: "In the Netherlands, the first tussenvoegsel is capitalized, unless a given name, initial, tile of nobility, or other family name (e,g, in the married name of women) precedes it. For example: Jan van den Berg, J. van den Berg, but Mijn naam is Van den Berg ("my name is Van den Berg") and de heer Van den Berg ("Mr. Van den Berg"). Herman baron van Voorst tot Voorst. Mrs. Jansen - van den Berg. In Flanders, tussenvoegsels of personal names always keep their original orthography: "mevrouw Van der Velde", "Van der Velde, A.", and "Van den Broeke, Jan". In the Netherlands the first letter of the tussenvoegsel is written with lower case in the above four exceptional cases, whereas in Flanders it is written according to the entry for the person in the population register and on his official ID. This implies that in Belgium it is usually written with an upper case with the exception for names of nobility or the royalty; for those they are always in lower case, also in Belgium. See for an alternative discussion of the capitalization and collation issues around separable affixes in Dutch Van (Dutch)."

Finally, this section also contains a reference to support these assertions: "Persoonsnamen". woordenlijst.org (in Dutch). Nederlandse Taalunie. Retrieved 19 February 2023.;
with this information the novice should be able to decide that the correct capitalization of the married name of Ella van Heemstra was: "Jonkvrouwe Ella Quarles van Ufford - van Heemstra". QED

I think this ought to convince even the most skeptical defender of the status quo ante. Ereunetes (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Ereunetes, since concision is an issue raised, can you say in one hundred words or less the key take-away of the amendment? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Certainly: Conform the guidance given for non-English names in The Chicago Manual of Style, the spelling of those should follow the spelling guidelines for personal names extant in the countries of the bearers of those names (Cf. CMOS, pp. 313-17). The remainder of my proposed text just gives a method for helping Wikipedia editors implement that guidance in a practical manner, using the resources of Wikipedia itself. I would have no problem with putting that remainder in a footnote to the "key take-away."

I should like to add (but the 100 word limit then comes within reach) that the current MOS:PERSONAL actually does the same thing. But I think the current guidance is useless (Cf. mhy "parable" above) whereas my guidance is actually helpful in my humble opinion. Ereunetes (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

CMOS does not have free access, so referring to it doesn't do much. Let's forget about your example bits for the moment. On my screen, the present guidance is about 3.5 lines of text. How would you improve the existing text without increasing its size by more than 10%? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I already have indicated that above: Put everything in the "remainder" in a footnote. As you object to a reference to CMOS. the guidance could become "The spelling of foreign personal names and surnames should follow the guidelines extant in the countries of the bearers of those names." And in the footnote it would already say that anything goes for American immigrants. Ereunetes (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Ereunetes, a major issue lies in the concision of the proposal. I am trying to facilitate a proposal that addresses this. It would therefore be useful if we could see how this might actually read. A more focused example is much more likely to achieve consensus than those already proposed. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cinderella157I understand and sympathize with what you are trying to achieve. A problem with the "conciseness" issue, is that I think we should preserve some part of the old MOS:PERSONAL text as I already did in my proposal, though I am not enamored of that. That leaves even less space for what I try to achieve.

And then the rest can be put in one or more notes. Or someone could write an article containing a discussion of the relevant permutations that could then be recommended. Ereunetes (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to have to oppose this change, as a bunch of WP:Instruction creep that also has a WP:Wall of text problem (as does the proposer's writing in general, judging from what's posted here). To address the "parable" above, the novice would be instructed to "Use the style that dominates for that person in reliable sources". If they can't find any reliable sources, then the erstwhile biography subject is not a topic WP should be covering (WP:Notability). WP itself is not a source, and especially cannot be used circularly to verify itself (WP:CIRCULAR) so the raison d'etre here, "My alternative approach assumes that the novice wants to do what so many want: 'look it up on Wikipedia'", simply isn't an option. Only offsite sources are going to tell us what some biographical subject's name properly is. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

In discussions with OP (on my talk page) I came to realize that my attempt to follow source usage, when I wrote my own book, didn't lead me to discover a key rule of Dutch names, namely the the prefix (e.g. Van) would be capitalized when the surname is used alone, but lowercase when the first name comes before it. If we don't articulate that somewhere, attempts to "follow the sources" aren't going to get us to a great place. But yes, it's rather too wordy. Maybe there's a short way to say follow the best rules and sources. Dicklyon (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The shorter the better. I would welcome constructive suggestions. Ereunetes (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I actually tend to agree with SMcCandish. But "Use the style that dominates for that person in reliable sources" is in the original MOS:PERSONAL. I simply copied that (as I copied the opening sentences). So I think the criticism should be addressed to the framers of the original version. I also agree that "Only offsite sources are going to tell us what some biographical subject's name properly is". This statement should be separated in two: the actual spelling in official sources like the Dutch and Belgian population registers, for instance. (Nobody, least of all myself, wants to change that). And the spelling when the name is used in the text of an article. My problem with the way the latter is often used in Wikipedia articles is that they diverge from official speling guidelines. To be specific: "van Leeuwenhoek" in e.g. the lede and elsewhere of Antonie van Leeuwenhoek is simply a spelling error, according to the rules of the Dutch Language Union It should be "Van Leeuwenhoek". (Cf. the reference given in the passage I quoted from Dutch name) I am sure SMcCandish does not want Wikipedia to be a den of misspellers sanctioned by the Anglophone Wikipedia community? Wouldn't that be a little arrogant on the part Of Wikipedia? It says actually: "We don't care about the spelling rules for Dutch names extant in that country. We will ourselves decide how we want to spell names of "darned furriners". That certainly is not the attitude of e.g. The Chicago Manual of Style. (Cf. the references I have given in several posts). Ereunetes (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the key question is the extent to which the Dutch rules are customary and correct in the context of English writing, and that SMcCandlish's point is that maybe they're not. I'm not sure. If you at book stats, it appears that English writers are pretty much completely ignorant of the Dutch capitalization rules. Is that OK, or is that something we should aim to do better on via style guidance? Dicklyon (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to make two points in reply to Dicklyon. I think that most of the "abuse" I signalize is based on a basic misunderstanding of the Dutch practices of capitalization. Anglophone writers are used to immutable spellings of names, as are the Belgians. But in the Netherlands (and France, Spain, and other countries), though the "main rule" is that all surnames are capitalized including the ones that contain one or more affixes, there are a number of exceptions (four in the Dutch case) to that main rule, that lead to a certain "mutability" of surnames, under certain circumstances. "Unfortunately", if one is first confronted with a Dutch personal name (i.e. a combination of one or more given names and a surname), one immediately encounters one or two of the exceptions: lowercase for the leading affix after a given name, or after an initial. So one may jump to the conclusion that "therefore" Dutch surnames that start with an affix, start with a lowercase letter. But however understandable, this remains an epic misunderstanding. The exception is taken for the rule. And even if one is indifferent about what other peoples may think, it is never a good idea to build on a basic misunderstanding of the facts, even if one subscribes to a solipsistic model for English writing. My second point is that unlike other rules promulgated by the Dutch language Union in recent years, this complex of main rule and exceptions has grown organically in the course of Dutch history. It is not the product of an official edict, but the official edict codified what already existed since time immemorial. But I think that only strengthens the import of cleaving to those rules as they are ipso facto also applicable in historical cases. Ereunetes (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the following perspective is helpful: Do not longer bend over backwards to respect the sensibilities of foreigners (as the Chicago Manual of Style would have it) and only follow American rules for capitalization. "President van Buren" would then become "President Van Buren" and "Dutch microscopist van Leeuwenhoek" would become "Dutch microscopist Van Leeuwenhoek". But that is precisely what the Dutch would like you to do. Because their "main rule" is also "Surnames are capitalized". So what is the problem exactly? Some might say: "Yes, but the personal name is spelled with a lowercase letter". True. But that is a consequence of the quaint Dutch exception to their main rule. Please explain why we should ignore the main Dutch rule in Wikipedia, but enforce an isolated Dutch exception? In America the rule for surnames is also not that certain surnames should start with a lowercase letter; why only for certain Dutch names? To put it a different way: I understand that for Portuguese names like Vasco da Gama it is perfectly alright to spell the affix with a lowercase letter, according to the Portuguese themselves (I have this on the authority of the CMOS; cf. CMOS, p. 314 ). So writing "da Gama" in a sentence is perfectly alright according to the guidance I propose. But that is a Portuguese convention. Why should everybody else have to follow that? On the other hand as an immigrant I am used to "adapt" to American mores. So I write my name "Ereunetes" and not ερευνητής like I was used to do Ereunetes (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Further revision

@Cinderella157I understand and sympathize with what you are trying to achieve. A problem with the "conciseness" issue, is that I think we should preserve some part of the old MOS:PERSONAL text as I already did in my proposal, though I am not enamored of that. That leaves even less space for what I try to achieve.

And then the rest can be put in one or more notes. Or someone could write an article containing a discussion of the relevant permutations that could then be recommended. Maybe I could add the following posts I made on Talk:List of family name affixes#Affixes and Separable Affixes and Talk:Capitalization#"Compound name" unfortunate, does not cover subject for consideration: if these edits were made to the respective articles, that would lessen the "burden" of explication in our own remit. Ereunetes (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Copied from above to facilitate further discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 I have in the meantime followed up on my "threat" to revise the subsection "Compound names" of Capitalization. This should solve a lot of the problems with the incorrect capitalization of Dutch surnames with separable affixes, if the revision is not reverted by the irate "owner" of the article, and if people read the article and the section in question. Which is not guaranteed. I therefore propose the following footnote at the end of the above proposal:

Ereunetes (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Ereunetes, sorry if I have been a bit tardy in getting back to you. I think I get what you are trying to do and it isn't a bad thing but ... There are a range of languages such that there is nuance both across languages and within which cannot be succinctly documented. This page really isn't the place for such intricate detail. I acknowledge your limitation to take such a thing on. Paraphrasing CMOS isn't a bad thing. If CMOS was open access or accessible through the Wiki library, citing it would be a solution but it isn't? Perhaps WMF could do something about that. The link you add to Capitalization#Compound names has a narrow focus on Dutch, Belgian and German names. When I read the modified text for here, It uses a lot of words to say not much. I could do a copy edit but I think the result would be to use less words but still say not much. I might give it a go nonetheless. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

By all means give it a try. But the current MOS:PERSONAL says even less. I put the operative phrase into my edit of Compound names under "American names" just to show that it only makes sense in that context; not for personal names in general. Here, in my proposal, the meat is in the footnote, because I was not allowed to put it in the guideline itself, "because of conciseness". The more concise, the less information. It is Hobson's choice, I am afraid (or is it Sophie's? ) So I think the question boils down to: if we want to have a guideline at all in MOS, do we hold onto the inadequate formulation we have now, or do we try to find something more useful? You'll probably guess my answer :-) Ereunetes (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems entirely reasonable as a footnote. But I'll repeat that for any given biographical subject, we should be treating the name as it is treated in most reliable sources; not everyone with, e.g., a Dutch name follows the common Dutch capitalization habits. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

And that is exactly the problem because of which I started this discussion. Like I said before, many Wikipedia editors honor the capitalization rules of the Belgo-Dutch Taalunie in the breach, mostly from pure ignorance. Did you actually read the preceding discussion? Ereunetes (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and opposed adding a bunch of wall-of-text rulemongering about it. Do what the majority of sources do for the individual in question. Not sure how else to say it. If someone has been "over-correcting" in a particular case, then fix it, and ask them not to robotically do that to Dutch-descended (or whatever) names. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

So why have a Manual of Style then? Because that is certainly a prime example of a "bunch of wall-of-text rulemongering". If we followed your advice a MOS would be superfluous. One practical question though: how do you decide what "the majority of sources" is? And what if "the majority" is simply wrong? Or is the majority never wrong? Ereunetes (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

There's a big difference between having a concise rule and having a blathering, tumid, opinionated rule. Majority: typically determined by n-grams and other ways of aggregating results. In something like this, a very strong majority (across all the source material not just stuff that's not independent of the subject) is basically "never wrong"; see the first few sentences at the top of MOSCAPS. But even that's not quite right; for a living subject, we'd defer to their own preferred spelling, per WP:ABOUTSELF. This has come up many times; e.g. RMs to remove the accent mark in a name that is conventionally, generally, usually González but in a specific celeb's case is spelled without the diacritic; and so on. I've said elsewhere to you, in user talk, that this stuff isn't just my opinion but is years of RM and other consensus precedent, and is important for not repeating old "style fight" shitshows. You ignoring it all because it doesn't suit your desire to enforce a false "hyper-consistency" is why you are getting so much pushback here. (That, and your verbosity, and your combative attitude, which you also dragged with you into the user-talk discussion at Dicklyon's page. Even with that unnecessary baggage, I think there's still room to work to a compromise, though, or I wouldn't bother to continue this discussion.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Behind the scenes Cinderella157 and I have been working on a more concise version of the proposed amendment. This was the result:

In addition I have edited Capitalization#Compound names to operationalize many of the reforms that were embedded in the original version of the proposed amendment. Also, in those edits a number of the comments and criticisms made in the above discussion this far have been taken into account. For instance, SMcCandish's preferences for the treatment of American subjects of foreign extraction with non-conforming ways of capitalizing their surnames have been met in a special sub section. I hope many of the objections made above have thus been met in a satisfactory fashion.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

To repeat what I said in user talk: It's missing two key components (in underline below) which were established by consensus at multiple (and sometimes acrimonious) RMs and other discussions. I would re-do it like this (including some re-wording in the first case that better matches the language used at the top of MOS:CAPS):

I could even see putting the "for modern subjects" part in another footnote.

I'm not at all convinced that because Dutch would begin a sentence with 't Hoen that English should, or regularly does, but I'm willing to see if the proposal flies. I'm not willing to see provisions removed when they exist because they forestall repetitive shitshows. That's mostly what MoS is for. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Dear @SMcCandlish. I think I see a basic misunderstanding here. The real dividing line is not between old and modern biographical subjects but between genuine foreigners with "foreign" (i.e. non-Anglophone) names, containing separable family name affixes on the one hand, and people living (sometimes for generations) in the U.S. with the same names. I agree that these groups should be treated differently, as does the Chicago Manual of Style in pp. 312-313 (15th ed.; later editions may have different pages). The CMOS starts with the treatment of "Americans" in an Anglophone context and they follow what you suggest (i.e. consult Anglophone Biographical Dictionaries, for the idiosyncratic spelling of these names, because there is really no alternative in view of the Total Chaos that exists in the US in the field of orthography and capitalization of names). And then they continue with the "genuine foreigners" (pp. 312 ff) where they in essence advise to follow the capitalization conventions of the countries, or "language communities" in question, and proceed by giving examples by country (distilled from capitalization guidance given by the respective official authorities by country, like the Dutch Language Union). I have followed this policy when I edited Compound names in the Capitalization article. The downside of this approach is that it plays havoc on the principle of "concision," so highly valued by Cinderella157. Because in the CMOS this approach takes five pages in small print. We therefore tried to achieve the same objective as the CMOS by using the resources of Wikipedia that already exist (i.e. the Capitalization article and a number of country-specific articles referenced in Surnames by country) to which we have pointed in footnote d. of our "concise" version (even though I would have preferred to put it in the main guidance, as in the original version). If you look at the "Compound names" subsection of the Capitalization article you will see that I there used the exact same language for the "American names" subsection as you now propose to include in the "concise" version (it was already in the previous "not-concise-enough version").

As to footnote a: this was provoked by the wishy-washy clause "almost always" that we inherited from the current version of MOS:PERSONAL, i.e. " As proper nouns, these names are almost always first-letter capitalized,..." It would be better to delete this clause, which would obviate the need for the explanatory footnote with examples of the exceptions. In the name of the principle "The exceptions prove the rule."

In sum: it is either the "concise" version, or the "long" version. If you insist on putting back the addition you propose, in the concise version, I have to insist on putting back all the things that were in the long version and that I have sacrificed on Cinderella157's altar of "concision". Ereunetes (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the material that SMcC would indicate does make this less concise. However, I acknowledge their reasons for including it. It would also be better if it could be retained in a more concise way but the way of doing this is not immediately apparent to me. We are substantially closer to reaching a consensus on changes to the section. It is a case of what the involved parties can ultimately live with. A position of only this or nothing is most likely going to result in nothing. Cutting off one's nose comes to mind. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

If expanding the proposal to accommodate the amendment by SMcC is not objectionable to you, you cannot object to an expansion to accommodate an amendment I would like to make to the "concise" version, I think. I would like to include what is now footnote d.into the main text. Also, I'd like to drop "almost always", together with the explanatory footnote a. from the text. Also, all the nonsense about racehorses etc could be dropped from the text (Or moved to a footnote). This would give us the following draft:

^ See examples at List of family name affixes.
^ For example, the conventions differ between Belgium and the Netherlands, though they share a language.
^ Alternative terms for separable affixes include: "particle" in Spanish naming conventions; "nobility particle" in French names; and "tussenvoegsel" in Dutch names.

Ereunetes (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with removing some of the guff in the introductory sentence. However, it is far from just me that needs to be convinced. You have omitted the case exampled by k. d. lang. I have recently seen discussions directly relating to this. On reflection, this is a significant piece of guidance and a point of contention in discussions. The issue of names away from their country of origin is not just an Americanism. What was fn a/1 has been omitted totally and my understanding is that the exception underscored in the first part of the fn is a substantial point being addressed by the amendment. I'm not convinced the part moved from what was fn d/4 is an overall improvement. What remains is now misplaced. It is too far removed from that which it is meant to qualify (ie separable affixes) so it is now out of context. It most certainly isn't a qualification of Italian name, which is where its current placement points. Overall, I see this as a step backwards. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

It gives me much satisfaction that you suddenly are convinced of the need to give explicit guidance in a number of instances, where you previously almost religiously let your preference for "concision" prevail. Far be it from me to stand in the way of footnotes of the kind that you now champion. So if you want the entire footnote a., as proposed by SMcC, restored (including the two Dutch examples with "apostrophed contractions"), you have my support. I would maintain that the "special treatment" of names of immigrants (flouting of conventions from the countries of extraction) is a singularly American problem (an example of "American exceptionalism" so to speak; I say this as a US citizen myself). If you know better, please give examples. As to the treatment of footnote d: I understand that you now propose to restore the entire footnote (including the part that I put into a new footnote) to the main text. Again, I have no objection. It was you who always insisted on the utmost concision. I am glad that you now share my viewpoint that "concision", though in theory to be applauded, should not stand in the way of "completeness". So, do you now support the amendment of MOS:PERSONAL with inclusion of the restorations you propose? Ereunetes (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

As you asked, my own family name is not as it would have been written. While you treat this as some sort of personal competition in which to score points instead of a collaboration, you are likely to get nothing. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Aw, you sound angry Cinderella. What did I do? I have conceded all your points. Didn't you notice that? What more could I do to earn your vote? Or were you always going to be opposed (as your previous posts on this page suggest) and was the "concision" ploy always that, instead of a serious attempt at compromise? As to your own family name being rewritten, the question then becomes: are you a non-US citizen or not? I was asking for an example of flouting of capitalization conventions outside the US. Ereunetes (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Suggest you read WP:AVOIDYOU and focus on content instead of casting aspersion. There was no point in referring to my own family name if I were a US citizen. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Could we avoid the ad hominem style of discussion? It is so unproductive. If I offended you, I offer my Unreserved and Abject Apologies. And I won't ask for your apologies for offending my feelings. Could we now return to the matter at hand? Would the formulation with all the "restorations" I conceded be acceptable? Ereunetes (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (foreign personal names)

I have yet again formulated a version of the amendment incorporating the "restorations" demanded by @Cinderella157 and @SMcCandlish. I hope we can now finally come to an agreement.

--Ereunetes (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

It's getting there, but "American" is wrong. This has nothing to do with the United States, and the same pattern of not following the "old country" capitalisation style can also be frequently found in the UK, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, etc., etc. I used "outside the country where the surname originated" for a reason. :-) You've also vague-ized in other ways, e.g. "In that case use the style that dominates in reliable biographical sources" should read something more like "In that case use the style that dominates in reliable biographical sources for that specific person", or people are going to misunderstand completely and think that we mean "follow the style that dominates in sources for all people with this surname, averaged out", which is not the case at all. And it really only applies to modern subjects, another caveat you dropped. Really, I don't know why you keep changing the wording I put back in. It was selected to be quite precise, for good reasons. If you're concerned about length, I'll repeat that this part about modern subjects can be shoved into another foonote. You're kind of re-editing at cross purposes to your own interests. The wording I used created an extremely narrow exception, and kept your general rule, and you've turned it into a broad and confusing exception that applies to everyone not just modern subjects (except then re-narrowed in a completely incorrect way to Americans only) that few will parse correctly. Please just accept the revision wording give above instead of trying to leaving your personal mark on it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

It was probably too optimistic to expect you to accept my compromise offer, but was it really necessary to be so rude about it? You all but accuse me of bad faith, which I think is undeserved, as I bent over backwards to copy your version of note a. verbatim (including your hidden formatting). I think you should moderate your tone somewhat, if you want to be taken seriously. Now to the matter at hand. I had a good reason to reject your proposal for an addition to the main text of the amendment. Your proposed addition has the (intended?) efect of nullifying the reform I proposed. If you go back to what I wrote at the very beginning of this Section of the talk page, under the heading "motivation", you'll find that I pointed out that in many Anglophone Wikipedia biographical (and other) articles about Dutch persons with "compound names" the "Main rule" of MOS:PERSONAL (as it now reads), namely As proper nouns, these names almost always are first-letter capitalized, especially at the beginning of a sentence is flouted. Example: in Antonie van Leeuwenhoek the name is consistently spelled "van Leeuwenhoek", where according to this "main rule" (and also the Dutch capitalization conventions that I have repeatedly cited) it should be spelled "Van Leeuwenhoek". There is no justication for this misspelling, except for the fact that all Anglophone sources of said article that I could check online commit the same error. So the majority of your "reliable sources" (however impeccable they may be as biographical sources) give exactly the wrong capitalization advice. This could have been avoided if they had followed the advice of authoritative Anglophone Manuals of Style, like the Chicago Manual of Style, which says: "Dutch names. In English usage, the particles van, van den, ter, and the like are lowercase when full names are given but usually capitalized when only the last name is used" (15th ed. (2003), p. 315). Please explain to me why Wikipedia should not follow this sage advice that has been followed by generations of American college students? It is so utterly simple in my view. Why invent your own version of "Dutch" that has no basis in linguistics, but is just based on an erroneous interpretation of the exception to the Main rule (cited above) that applies to "full names" (in the CMOS parlance), but not to "last names"? My version of the amendment proposes to avert such mistakes, not only for Dutch names, but also for other non-Anglophone "compound" names, from other language communities, that all have their own capitalization conventions, as the CMOS also recognizes. And my version gives practical advice on how to implement this. What could be a rational objection to this? Ereunetes (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The point of contention would appear to be For Americans with such foreign surnames the conventions in question may not be applicable. In that case use the style that dominates in reliable biographical sources, and for a living subject, prefer the spelling consistently used in the subject's own publications compared with the previous (original) wording: However, for modern subjects, this can vary by individual, especially outside the country where the surname originated ~~: Marie van Zandt, John Van Zandt;~~ [. Use] the style that dominates for that person in reliable sources, and for a living subject, prefer the spelling consistently used in the subject's own publications. [simplified by removing example] CMOS is an American publication writing primarily for an American audience. Not surprisingly it describes a matter in an American context but this does not ipso facto make it exclusively an American phenomenon. As I indicated previously and as SMcC points out most recently, this is a phenomenon that applies broadly to any country where there has been mass immigration. To the rest of the passage, SMcC would point to the less restrictive language which actually works against the stated intention of the revision. I share this view, that it actually works against the stated intention of the revision. While SMcC is advocating their wording, they are also explicitly stating that that their preferred version need not be adopted verbatum - even if this might be the simplest resolution. They state, should read something more like and offer that detail might be placed in a footnote. I see nothing in SMcC's comment that is not colegiate, constructive critique. I certainly do not see rudeness nor allegations. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for your explication. Ereunetes (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I would like to say that this problem of personal name capitalization extend to other areas like objects named after a person. Is it van der Waals force or Van der Waals force? both can be found in literature, however in this example the former is more popularly used but it does not mean it is the correct use, it could be just negligence. Half of physics equations in Wikipedia use one convention or another when dealing with Dutch.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Groan. It should be "Van der Waals force" but I think you are right that "van der Waals force" may be more prevalent. Which is exactly my point. This is just a manifestation of the misunderstanding of the correct application of the convention. Ironically, the Americans of Dutch extraction with a prefix like "Van" in their name almost always insist on using a capitalized "Van", even when the Dutch exception allows a lowercase. E.g.Martin Van Buren who insists his surname is Van Buren and not "van Buren", disparages the opportunity to use the lowercase in the spelling of his full name. My point: the use of lowercase in the stand-alone surname is completely idiosyncratic. It should always be uppercase in the stand-alone surname, so: "Van der Waals". Ereunetes (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Placeholder for RfC: National armed forces members' capitalization

Placeholder for RfC

[In view of the above RfC's discussion, following its conclusion I will propose this:]

Should the capitalization of titles for specific nations' armed forces members follow their own nations' practices, e.g. "Spanish marine" but "[U.S.] Marine" and (U.K.) "Royal Marine" for individuals? For instance:

This presumes the terms not attached to any specific nation remain uncapitalized, e.g. "Many countries around the world maintain marines and naval infantry military units."

– .Raven .talk 19:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Marine"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing per WP:SNOW. Supporting editors argued that editing the MOS would conform with the official USMC style as well as common styling choices in American news media and other sources. Editors in opposition argued that Wikipedia has no obligation to follow the styling of other sources, nor any branches of military in its MOS. There is a consensus to keep the lowercase styling of the word "marine." Combefere ★ Talk 16:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Should a member of the U.S. Marine Corps be referred to as a "Marine" (or, if retired, "Marine veteran") with a capital M? – .Raven .talk 02:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Re MOS:MARINE ("Military terms"): currently brought up at Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely...

The U.S. Marine Corps prefers the capitalization of "Marine", even applied to individual members (and also deprecates "former" or "ex-Marine" in favor of "Marine veteran"; "Once a Marine, Always a Marine") — and reports have generally complied:

https://www.marines.com/life-as-a-marine/life-in-the-marine-corps/once-a-marine-always-a-marine.html
There truly is no such thing as a former Marine, as after service our Marine Veterans are just as dedicated to advancing our Nation and defending its ideals.
Cf. Wikipedia article United States Marine Corps rank insignia#Enlisted
E.g.: with Marines of these ranks serving as the senior enlisted Marines in a unit
https://styleguide.militaryonesource.mil/terms/m
Marine – Capitalize references to U.S. forces: the U.S. Marines, the Marines, the Marine Corps. Do not use USMC. Uppercase when referring to a member of the U.S. Marines: She met a fellow Marine. Use "U.S." before service names only when the context is unclear without it.
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/columns/editors-desk/marine-vs-soldier-theres-a-difference/article_98e94b76-ec25-11df-b7c9-0017a4a78c22.html
... this is a good opportunity to review the stylebook entries:
Marines Capitalize when referring to U.S. forces: the U.S. Marines, the Marines, the Marine Corps, Marine regulations. Do not use the abbreviation USMC.
Capitalize Marine when referring to an individual in a Marine Corps unit: He is a Marine.
Do not describe Marines as soldiers, which is generally associated with the Army. Use troops if a generic term is needed.
https://archive.nytimes.com/afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/when-every-letter-counts/
We will now capitalize Marine and Marines when referring to individual members of the United States Marine Corps. Under the previous rule, we capitalized references to the service as a whole, but lowercased “marine” in referring to individuals. We used to say, “Three marines were wounded in the fighting.” Now we’ll say, “Three Marines were wounded in the fighting.” (We’ll make a similar change to capitalize “Coast Guardsman,” though that comes up less frequently.)

We also rely on actual news reports as sources. Some of the cites actually in Killing of Jordan Neely:

Long, Katherine; Schwartz, Mattathias; Newsham, Jack (May 5, 2023). "Daniel Penny, a 24-year-old Marine vet, is the man seen choking Jordan Neely in subway death". Business Insider. Archived from the original on May 5, 2023.
Toropin, Konstantin (May 9, 2023). "A Marine Vet Used a Chokehold Leading to a Man's Death. The Technique, Taught in Basic Training, Faces Fresh Scrutiny". Military.com. Archived from the original on June 1, 2023. Retrieved 2023-06-03.
"Grand jury votes to indict Marine who held homeless man in fatal chokehold on NYC subway".
markelibert. "Jordan Neely, a Michael Jackson Impersonator, Strangled to Death By U.S. Marine Veteran on NYC Subway". Complex. Archived from the original on May 4, 2023. Retrieved May 4, 2023.
Schemmel, Alec (May 5, 2023). "Neely assault victim on chokehold controversy: 'The Marine shouldn't be punished'". WRGB. Retrieved May 23, 2023.
Tracy, Thomas; Parascandola, Rocco; Moynihan, Ellen; McShane, Larry (May 4, 2023). "Criminal charges weighed against Marine in chokehold death of Jordan Neely as NYPD and Manhattan DA confer". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on May 4, 2023. Retrieved May 4, 2023.
Li, David K.; Dienst, Jonathan. "Jordan Neely's family lashes out at Marine who put him in deadly chokehold on subway". NBC News. Archived from the original on May 8, 2023. Retrieved May 8, 2023.
Bisram, Jennifer; Maldonado, Zinnia (May 5, 2023). "Pressure mounting on Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to charge Marine veteran in Jordan Neely's death". CBS News New York. Archived from the original on May 6, 2023. Retrieved May 6, 2023.

At some point, shouldn't Wikipedia follow RSs as well as current off-Wiki style guides, and capitalize "Marine"? I so move. – .Raven .talk 02:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Support capitalization. I see little purpose in swimming against the tide. I think it's safe to assume most editors won't think to check the MOS against the conventions of their citations, and those of us who have will go nuts bringing articles into compliance. Even gnomes have better things to do. ;-) Xan747 (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I oppose capitalization. Reading the arguments below has convinced me. Updated 18:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC) support capitalization - it's a proper adjective, after all, and as Xan points out, is contrary to essentially all conventions that cover this usage I have ever been aware of. I am hesitant to support the "once a Marine, always a Marine" styling - it isn't Wikipedia's place to uphold what is basically a vanity title - not to be disrespectful, but it makes it unnecessarily ambiguous to refer to both active and discharged Marines as simply "Marines." PriusGod (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Discharged Marines are "Marine veterans", as distinct from "Army veterans", "Navy veterans", "Air Force veterans", and "Coast Guard veterans". (I suppose someday soon there will be "Space Force veterans".) – .Raven  .talk 08:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
"Marine veteran" is not actually good writing. "Army veteran", "Navy veteran", "Air Force veteran" are all using noun phrases, and might be capitalized when they are short forms in a specific context of a longer proper name ("US Army", "Royal Navy", etc.); and not capitalized when generic (e.g. "Many of the immigrants were army veterans of their respective countries"). But the "marine" equivalent would be "Marine Corps veteran" (or in UK, "Royal Marines veteran", though "Marine Corps veteran" can actually apply to the UK as well; the full name of the division is Corps of Royal Marines). Just using the adjective as "Marine veteran" is like just using the adjective from "Air Force" and writing "Air veteran". "Marine" used as an adjective like that is generic: "marine unit", "marine tactic", "marine troops"; it is directly equivalent to "amphibious unit", "naval tactic", "air support", etc. That some people like to over-capitalize it anyway (probably in all of those cases) isn't really of any concern to us, other than a "capitalize everything with a military connection" bad habit to avoid. "Marine" as a noun is a modern back-formation from the adjective and has limited usage ("Jones was a marine", "Jones joined the Marines in 1947", capitalized in the latter case again as a short form of "Marine Corps" of a specific country (whereas "marine" in the former construction, "Jones was a marine", is not such a shorthand: expanded to "Jones was a Marine Corps", it would not parse). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
> "'Marine veteran' is not actually good writing." — As I cited above, it is preferred by the Marine Corps itself, and used in multiple news agencies' reports. At some point, we concede our own preferences to outside sources.
> "'Marine' used as an adjective like that is generic: 'marine unit', 'marine tactic', 'marine troops'" — With lower-case "m", "marine" as an adjective can simply refer to matters of the sea (Latin mare), e.g. "marine vehicle" generally means a boat or ship, not a car or truck belonging to the U.S. Marine Corps. The chance of being mis-read follows from that ambiguity. So lower-case "marine veteran" could be taken as referring to any "sea veteran," any retired (or even "old hand") sailor, including civilians or Coast Guard. We shouldn't leave doubt of our meaning. – .Raven  .talk 18:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
If you think that governmentese and journalism for that matter are paragons of good writing, especially in an encyclopedic context, you really don't have much business participating in MoS discussions, LOL. With lower-case "m", "marine" as an adjective can simply refer to matters of the sea, yes "can" not "does". An enormous proportion of the words in English have multiple meanings, and we do not use capitalization as a signifier to distinguish them (MOS:SIGCAPS), we use clear writing. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
So do you also insist that members of the Coast Guard should be called "coast guardsmen" rather than "Coast Guardsmen"? Hmm. Interesting. Actual usage in the real world, as by government and journalism, doesn't matter! We get to write our own language! – .Raven  .talk 22:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose This has been discussed ad nauseam (better get me a bucket) and the status quo upheld each time. Unless there is something new or novel, this is just another WAFTAM doing the same thing over and expecting a different outcome. If used alone, it is a descriptive common noun. A marine is a nautical soldier. Capitalising for a US nautical soldier would fall to MOS:SIGNIFCAPS and we don't do that. If preceding a name and it is being used as a rank (equivalent to private), it is an attributive noun and title. In this case MOS:JOBTITLES also applies and it is capitalised when used as such. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Marine expeditionary force: A Marine expeditionary force (MEF), formerly known as a Marine amphibious force, is the largest type of a Marine air-ground task force. ... larger than a Marine expeditionary unit (MEU) or Marine expeditionary brigade (MEB). / Each MEF consists of a MEF Information Group (MIG) as the command element, a Marine division (MARDIV) as the ground combat element, a Marine aircraft wing (MAW) as the aviation combat element, and a Marine logistics group (MLG) as the logistics combat element.
Notice that only one of the words in the acronymic phrases is capitalized, each time.
An aerodynamically alleviated marine vehicle is a kind of boat; "a marine thruster is a device for producing directed hydrodynamic thrust mounted on a marine vehicle, primarily for maneuvering or propulsion"; the lowercase "marine" conveys "of, found in, or produced by the sea".
That's distinct from a Marine vehicle... unless Title Case makes it a Marine Vehicle. – .Raven  .talk 08:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
The fact that you can find over-capitalized examples doesn't really tell us anything. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Your calling them "over-capitalized" presumes your case. What if all of them are right? – .Raven  .talk 18:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The question of this RfC is capitalisation of marine and the guidance at MOS:MARINE - in reference to an individual or group of marines in the same context as using soldier, sailor or airman. Whether the examples provided are right or wrong is immaterial to this discussion because they fall outside the scope of this particular guidance being discussed. The comment is a WP:STRAWMAN. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
The ambiguity of lower-cased "marine" is one good reason for capitalizing the word when it relates to the Corps.
"He operated a marine vehicle" and "He operated a Marine vehicle" do not convey the same meaning. – .Raven  .talk 06:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Once again, good writing can solve this issue. Surely you would write, "He operated a Marine Corps vehicle." Primergrey (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Even without this, sentences are not written in isolation. Context establishes meaning. We don't hear capital letters yet meaning is still conveyed when spoken because of context. If it is not, policy tells us that we should refactor to accommodate the vision impaired relying on text readers. However, the example represents a red-herring argument, since we are considering the advice at MOS:MARINE, which is the use of marine as a term for particular service personnel. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
> ""... we are considering the advice at MOS:MARINE, which is the use of marine as a term for particular service personnel."
We are considering an RfC on whether to amend MOS:MARINE on that very point.
The ambiguity created by lower-casing marine is among the reasons to do so. – .Raven  .talk 08:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

By that reasoning we can also say "He was a Marine Corps veteran", leaving "He was a marine veteran" to cover old sailors, whether civilian or from other branches of service (e.g. Coast Guard).
It's a pity then that the real-world usage, as seen not only on that USMC webpage but also in a number of those RS headlines, is "He was a Marine veteran" or even "He was a Marine vet". – .Raven  .talk 08:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
The RfC would state: Should a member of the U.S. Marine Corps be referred to as a "Marine" (or, if retired, "Marine veteran") with a capital M?. We are considering the advice at MOS:MARINE, which is the use of marine as a term for particular service personnel. Examples of A Marine expeditionary force (MEF) and He operated a marine vehicle do not address the question of particular service personnel. They do not evidence an ambiguity relevant to the question of the RfC. They are red-herring strawman arguments. There is no evidence of ambiguity presented when referring to personel. We would not refer to old sailors as a marine veteran. This would be an argument fallacy of unnatural, fabricated or false example. We would call them: a veteran mariner, a veteran sailor or a naval (coast guard) veteran if we wished to specify they were a military veteran. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
> "address the question of particular service personnel."
That's precisely why the capital M for members of the Corps — because "marine personnel" or "marine crew" or "marine crewmember" all might refer to any personnel or crew or crewmembers on a sea vessel, including "marine biologists" and other "marine scientists" on a boat off Bar Harbor. – .Raven  .talk 21:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. I concur entirely with Cinderella157. This is tedious rehash of something that is rehashed so often it should get listed at WP:PERENNIAL. We have MOS:SIGCAPS and MOS:MARINE for a reason. We do not capitalize something just because it's American (even if some American journalists do). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
American usage shouldn't apply in articles about American events involving American people? – .Raven .talk 18:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we should start ignoring all those ENGVAR tags in articles, then. Just because it's British doesn't mean we should do it that way, after all. Historians also tend to use Marine as opposed to marine, but as always I suspect Wikipedia's own twisted style preferences will prevail. Intothat darkness 01:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose on the same basis as Cinderella157, we follow status quo and reliable sources. We don't follow job title minutiae of the U.S Marine Corp but instead what is generally accepted. LoomCreek (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
You mean the New York Times and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch are no longer reliable sources? – .Raven  .talk 18:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
On how to write encyclopedically, no news organizations are reliable "sources"; we do not mimic other writing styles. WP is not written in news style as a clear matter of policy (WP:NOT#NEWS), and MoS has borrowed very close to zero elements of any kind from news style guides. It is based 99.99% on academic style guides. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
On how to write encyclopedically?
Encyclopedia Britannica: "The Marine Corps was founded on November 10, 1775, when the Continental Congress ordered that two battalions of Marines be raised for service as landing forces with the fleet. Marines have participated in all wars of the United States, being in most instances first, or among the first, to fight. In addition, Marines have executed more than 300 landings on foreign shores and served in every major U.S. naval action since 1775." – .Raven  .talk 22:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Dictionaries:
Oxford Learners' Dictionary: "The Marines became well known during the Second World War when they successfully attacked the Pacific islands occupied by the Japanese."
Cambridge Dictionary: "He's in the Marines."
(Neither of those being American dictionaries.) – .Raven  .talk 23:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose, also per Cinderella. I don't care what the US Marine Corps thinks (their name can be capped, but not "Marine", nor "Officer", nor "Soldier". Definitely no to that boosterism. Tony (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
You also don't care what the press style-guides used by our Reliable Sources say? – .Raven .talk 18:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. Regulov (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose: Please review the history of the issue in the archives. If there's something new to be said, I'd be surprised, but I'd read it with an open mind. Repeating old arguments gets us nowhere. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 19:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - We are no more bound to using news agencies' style guides than they are to using ours. Primergrey (talk) 04:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Support, .Raven has proven their case here, societal and journalistic usage uppercases the term, and uppercasing seems to be the common name. The fact that "marine biology" and the like are lowercase separates the word from military service (unlike army, navy, air force, which have no common usage outside of military use). Randy Kryn (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
This seems an odd placement for an RfC on the topic, could have been done at the U.S. Marine page. Have that talk page and the talk pages of military WikiProjects been notified? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Now done. Thanks for the suggestion! – .Raven .talk 21:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose again. Absolutely no reason to make an exception from standard English (and Wikipedia) usage. What the USMC prefers is utterly irrelevant. They're marines, just like soldiers, sailors and airmen. And police officers, teachers, bricklayers, accountants, firefighters, doctors, etc, etc, etc. If we followed US military preferences, we'd capitalise pretty much every term relating to the military, as the military loves capitalisation. Also note that the USMC isn't the only marine corps in the world, and this applies to all of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per pretty much everything everyone else who has opposed has said. Necrothesp gives a really good explanation if you want more details. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Every time this issue comes up, it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what the MoS is. It is, merely, our own internal style guide. Unlike our content rules, we have zero obligation to follow any other style guide. We could decide to style our articles in SaRcAsM fOnT if we wanted to. For that reason, and for many others highlighted above, I oppose amending the MoS to reflect the preferences of the US military. Parsecboy (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per Parsecboy. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Weak oppose. This is like a house style or legalese, where a common noun like “the Directors” is capitalized in an annual report, contract, or promotional literature. NY Times uses it, so maybe it’s becoming customary in US publications. I’d consider using it in articles on United States subjects, but then there would be inconsistency in the many articles about military matters and events that are multinational. I don’t think we want to end up arguing over “the conference was attended by naval infantry from allies, including ten Marines from Virginia, six marines from Manchester, and two dozen marines from European capitals.” If British, Canadian, and international publications start to always capitalize the common noun marine, then we should revisit it. —Michael Z. 00:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@Mzajac: "... British, Canadian, and international publications...." —
- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12144423/Moment-mob-FORTY-teenagers-surround-three-Marines-California-beach.html — e.g. "The new video shows the moment a large group surround two of the Marines as they start pushing each other back and forth" [Note British grammar in "surround"]
- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64897424 — "Sgt Vargas-Andrews testified that he and another US Marine had received intelligence about the bombing before it occurred, and that he had spotted the suspect in the crowd." [Note British punctuation in "Sgt"]
- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/28/marines-taiwan-missile-war-transformation/ — "Eschewing their traditional role sailing the globe aboard the US Navy’s amphibious assault ships, the Marines became a landbound force."
- https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/6-marines-missing-after-two-13694281 — "Japan's defence ministry said that its maritime forces had so far rescued one of the seven Marines who were aboard the two aircraft at the time of the incident." [Note British spelling in "defence"]
  (Also, re @Primergrey:'s comment above, "Surely you would write, "He operated a Marine Corps vehicle.'", see in that article: "A Marine F-18 & a /C-130 crashed during aerial refueling off Iwakuni, Japan. Both aircraft went into the water.")
- https://halifax.citynews.ca/2020/07/07/marine-corps-says-marine-shot-self-on-california-base-2545738/ ["by Canadian Press"] — "Military police found the Marine on a remote hillside on base and cordoned off the area, she said. They were communicating with the Marine when the individual sustained the self-inflicted gunshot wound around 8:30 a.m.."
- https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/us-marine-dies-after-australia-exercise-accident [based in Toronto, Ontario] — "One other Marine received minor injuries from the accident and was released from the hospital."
- https://www.forthenryguardclub.ca/photos-and-video/fhg-usmc/ [based in Kingston, Ontario] — "The Guard is one of the few civilian units permitted to parade on the Marine parade deck in Washington, and the Marines are the only non-British or Canadian unit to be entrusted with the keys to Fort Henry."
- https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_214258.htm — "The US Marines, agile despite their heavy winter gear, amble into the fresh snow and strip the parachute rigging from the cargo, revealing a stack of truck tires. The Marines load them onto a cargo truck, which heads to a resupply point."
- https://reliefweb.int/report/japan/japan-self-defense-force-marines-train-disasters — "The event marked the first year Marines participated in the exercise, supporting mutual preparation and demonstrating the importance of interoperability."
- https://www.newsinenglish.no/2022/03/21/us-marines-crash-victims-identified/ — "The head of Norway’s armed forces, Gen Eirik Kristoffersen said he had 'feared the worst' after being told that the US Marines’ aircraft had been reported missing Friday evening, 'but I kept hoping for better news. My thoughts go to the families and colleagues of those killed.'"
- https://esut.de/2020/03/meldungen/streitkraefte/19483/das-u-s-marine-corps-beabsichtigt-tiefgreifende-strukturaenderungen/ — "Operationen rund um Inselketten sollen in zahlenmäßig beschränkten und infanteristisch kämpfenden Kampfgruppen (50 bis 100 Marines) unterstützt durch unbemannten Systemen und mobilen Anti-Schiffsraketen erfolgen."
- https://www.timagazine.defense.gouv.fr/ils-prennent-la-parole/larmee-de-terre-vue-par/captain-foster-commandant-dunite-us-marine-corps — "Sur le camp militaire de Caylus, 50 Marines en treillis, armes à la main répètent les gestes techniques qu'ils devront réaliser ce soir afin de mener à bien leur mission de réduction de résistance isolée."
– .Raven .talk 07:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
That’s useful but recognize it is a mix of different meanings. “The Marines” refers to an organization in several, and there’s at least one attributive use of the organizations name: the “Marine parade deck.” How common is the capitalization? Is it ever used for British or other marines? —Michael Z. 15:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
> "one attributive use of the organizations name: the “Marine parade deck.'" — Which, please note, is also not "Marine Corps parade deck", contra @Primergrey:'s comment above.

The British have the Royal Marines, and I've only ever seen that capitalized (i.e. never "royal marines"); for example, "An Afghan double killer was able to sneak into Britain posing as a 14-year-old schoolboy before going on to murder an aspiring Royal Marine, it has emerged." [telegraph.co.uk]
They've fought alongside U.S. Marines, and those prefixes to "Marines" can disambiguate the two. Cf. "Allied Marines in the Korean War".

– .Raven  .talk 16:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I think we're all on the same page that when Marines or Marine is short for US Marine Corps (or Royal Marines), it's capped. What's under discussion is if marine as a word for individual military persons, analogous to soldier, sailor is capped. My opinion is that if sailor, soldier is lc, so is marine. Indefatigable (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Just as even a single "aspiring Royal Marine" is capitalized, a single (U.S.) "Marine" is capitalized.
If referring generically to 'seafaring infantry' not of any particular nation, then the generic term "marine[s]" could apply. For specific nations' forces, we should use their format, e.g. "A Spanish marine, left, explains how her weapon works to a U.S. Marine...." — and in fact I'm willing to start a separate RfC for that generalization (rather than change this one mid-!voting).
ETA: Done, below, as a placeholder pending this RfC's conclusion. – .Raven  .talk 16:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
The construction "an aspiring Royal Marine" is shorthand for "a person aspiring to be a member of the Royal Marines". "Royal Marine" is thus referring to the branch, not the individual. The same would be true if it were changed to "an aspiring US Marine". Most of the examples given as support for capitalizing references to individuals are actually such shorthand, and really should be phrased in a more complete form in encyclopedic writing. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
By the same argument, "a Marine" is shorthand for "a member of the U.S. Marine Corps" — a very frequently used shorthand, no doubt because it is shorter by five words. As to "encyclopedic writing", I've noted above that Encyclopedia Britannica is among those using the shorthand. – .Raven  .talk 14:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding my comment, I did make sure to say "good writing". Your example couldn't even be bothered to include an apostrophe. Primergrey (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
"Your example"? No — "organizations name" is Mzajac's own text. – .Raven  .talk 00:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Support capitalization, or at the very least the creation of an AMVAR tag to use in articles dealing with the USMC. If we can have a tag intended to preserve spellings and other things considered British English (often for no other reason than the article subject happens to be British), this feels like a similar situation. Intothatdarkness 13:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- I hardly think the preference of the USMC can be regarded on the same basis as a national variety of English! Note that many of those opposing above are Americans. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
  The nationality of supporters and opposers doesn't matter to me. I think the nom has demonstrated that Marines is in fact in common usage, and has been for some time. And, really, ENGVAR is also about preference, isn't it? Wikipedia is often a walled garden and echo chamber. Intothatdarkness 15:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
  > "Wikipedia is often a walled garden and echo chamber." — It sometimes seems to me as though some of us are trying to create a conlang (constructed language) just for Wikipedia, as though we weren't writing for the outside world. – .Raven  .talk 16:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
  You do realize that description applies to literally every style manual, yes? There isn't a style guide in existence that isn't constructed, and CMoS clearly doesn't care what AMA says about how to format citations, for example. Why you think Wiki's MoS needs to follow usage elsewhere, I don't know, but to be clear: it does not.
  
  What this boils down to is, some of you like following the US DoD's idiosyncratic capitalization styling, and some of us don't see the need to do so. Parsecboy (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
  Then maybe this should extend to things like ENGVAR as well, which some of us think is silly while others will enforce to the last ditch and breath. And as the nom has demonstrated, this usage isn't restricted to DoD. I realize this is probably going to fail, but that doesn't mean it makes sense or is in line with what's happening outside the walled garden. But Wikipedia also perpetuates things like Comanche campaign...something that exists only as an arbitrary designation used by the Army for lineage purposes. Intothat darkness 18:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
  Again, that other organizations' style guides also happen to follow DoD's capitalization preferences doesn't mean we have to.
  
  And again, supporters of the proposal are conflating following common usage for article content with following common usage for article style. The two are not the same thing. And as a tertiary source, we must do the former, but we are by no means bound to the latter. Parsecboy (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
  So because we've always done it this way we should keep doing it this way just because we've always done it this way (even though almost no one else seems to, and we end up modifying sourced content to make it comply with our idiosyncratic style)? I'm not conflating anything...I just happen to disagree with what Wikipedia does here. Last time I checked that was still permissible. Intothat darkness 18:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
  We can do without strawmen, thank you very much.
  
  Why are we copy/pasting content from other sources? Formatting in a quote can obviously be maintained; anything else deserves the banhammer for copyvio. If we are paraphrasing content, as we should be, your comment is irrelevant, since all of the source content should be modified. Not sure I understand the complaint on this one. Parsecboy (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
  Please confine your pedantic responses to something else. And you know as well as I people copy and paste content from other sources quite often. Sometimes it's public domain, other times it's people who can't be bothered to paraphrase (or don't know they're supposed to). We don't agree on this issue and aren't likely to. I'm leaving it at that. Intothat darkness 21:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
  Ah, yes, strawman my argument, accuse me of being a pedant for pointing out the gaping hole in your statement, and then take your ball and go home, all the while ignoring any substantive point I've made. A real tour de force. Parsecboy (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
  No, I just don't think you've pointed out a gaping hole in anything. And your entire position does revolve around "we've always done it this way" while disregarding practices beyond Wikipedia. I don't see any substantive points you've made, either, aside from doubling down on your "we've always done it this way" position. I believe MoS in this instance needs to change due to common usage and practice beyond Wikipedia. You clearly do not. If common practice outside Wikipedia is somehow a straw man, you have a very unique definition of the term. I said I was stepping away from this because you're clearly not going to change your position, and nothing you've said has been convincing to me, either. Intothat darkness 15:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
  Please quote anywhere I said anything remotely close to “we’ve always done it this way, so we always should”. I won’t hold my breath, because you won’t be able to find anything to quote. You have (repeatedly now) strawmanned my argument.
  
  Let me break my basic point down for you: your (and .Raven’s) basic premis is that because all of the cited sources capitalize marine, we should also. My argument is that your logic does not apply to style guides. The MoS is entirely internally generated, and quite unlike our article content policies, we have no obligation to follow external practices. In other words, your fundamental premise is flawed from the start.
  
  By way of example, if I said we need to keep marine lowercase because the moon is made of cheese, the logic would be fallacious, since regardless of whether the moon is made of cheese or not, it has nothing to do with our internal style guide. Likewise, practices outside of Wikipedia have nothing to do with how we decide to style text. Parsecboy (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
  I'm not directly quoting you, simply paraphrasing your main contention, which boils down to "we've always done it this way." That's what the internal MoS comes down to...a collection of things Wikipedia does a particular way. We are discussing a change to those guidelines to bring them more in line with external common practice. Just because something is internal doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't change to reflect other practices. Let me break this down for you: You don't seem to believe the MoS should reflect common practice because it hasn't to this point (that seems to be the core of your contention, leaving the content discussion aside); I feel it should be updated to reflect common external practice. You keep trying to deflect this by bringing up content as opposed to style. Your logic only makes sense if the MoS is a static, never-changing document. As far as I know it's not. Intothat darkness 16:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
  ..."because it hasn't to this point " - that rationale is entirely in your own mind. That is exactly what I'm talking about when I say you are straw-manning my argument. You have invented a justification that I have never uttered. The concept that the MoS is an internal document is simply a rebuttal to your argument (and .Raven's) that, because other places capitalize it, we have to also. Nothing more. Has it crossed your mind that there are other reasons to oppose this change? That many people, including myself, have already stated? Or are you assuming those of us disagree with you are doing so solely for an illogical reason, thereby allowing you to ignore any arguments to the contrary? I will grant you one thing: no one is going to change their mind here, because only one of us is interested in an intellectually honest discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
  
  We could in theory agree, just among ourselves for Wikipedia usage, on a style that allwordsshouldberuntogetherlikethis, PeRhApSwItHaLtErNaTeCaPs, but that would not help our readers from outside understand our articles' meanings.
  If readers from outside, used to seeing "a Marine" for a member of the USMC, but "a marine" for a generic reference to no particular nation's 'seafaring infantry', sees us write "a marine" in reference to a member of the USMC, they will not correctly understand our meaning, because we will have unilaterally departed from the outside world's usage. – .Raven  .talk 19:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
  Do you really believe readers can't be trusted to understand context? Are you suggesting that someone who reads United States Marine Corps would be confused by the current capitalization of "Marines from Ceremonial Companies A & B, quartered in Marine Barracks, Washington, D.C., guard presidential retreats, including Camp David, and the marines of the Executive Flight Detachment of HMX-1 provide helicopter transport..."? Come now. Parsecboy (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
  Sometimes context will clarify meaning (as that quote did); sometimes not.
  Just having the word at the start of a sentence, so the reader can't tell why it's capitalized, might make meaning ambiguous, so the opportunity for confusion would remain.
  But a sentence like "A marine was found on the beach." — if we never capitalize it mid-sentence — will unnecessarily leave that meaning ambiguous.
  A sentence like "He traveled in a marine vehicle." — even more so. – .Raven  .talk 07:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
  You're still pulling hypotheticals out of context, here and below (in that sentences are part of paragraphs, and sometimes another sentence will give you information about another), and badly written ones at that. Read the second paragraph here and tell me if you honestly think anyone would be confused by the lack of capitalization in the second sentence in that paragraph. Parsecboy (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
  
  This is a reference to the branch and should really be "a Marine Corps vehicle" or "a vehicle belonging to the Marine Corps" or similar construction. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
  
  In that example, both occasions of "the marines" follow the opening "the American 2nd Marine Division", which sets context.
  You called "A marine was found on the beach." a hypothetical out of context. Further above, I quoted a full paragraph from a Canadian article: "Military police found the Marine on a remote hillside on base and cordoned off the area, she said. They were communicating with the Marine when the individual sustained the self-inflicted gunshot wound around 8:30 a.m." Unlike your example paragraph, this paragraph doesn't specify context. Without that capitalization, one might well wonder to which nation's armed forces that person belonged.
  So relying entirely on a context having been set is precarious. – .Raven  .talk 09:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
  Are you serious? Read the sentence that immediately precedes it. What kind of marine might one reasonably expect to be stationed at Twentynine Palms in California? You are still plucking sentences out of context to prove your point. The tendentiousness of your argumentation is becoming tiresome. Parsecboy (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
  You had offered a link to a wiki-paragraph which gave context; I replied with a previously quoted+cited news-paragraph in full (no sentences plucked) which didn't give context.
  As to what kind of marine might one find on USMC bases — see:
  https://www.marines.mil/News/News-Display/Article/707902/nato-allies-train-on-camp-lejeune/
  
  https://id.usembassy.gov/u-s-and-indonesian-marines-begin-bilateral-military-training-exchange/
  
  – .Raven  .talk 17:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
  
  > "There isn't a style guide in existence that isn't constructed" — I note that the AP Style Guide adopts a socially conscious policy in its editing, e.g. re "deadnaming" ("The practice, widely considered insensitive, offensive or damaging, of referring to transgender people who have changed their name by the name they used before their transition."), and does not refuse to take note of outside sources' recommended usage.
  > "CMoS clearly doesn't care what AMA says about how to format citations" — I note that citation formatting is not a topic of social consensus, or indeed of much social concern. – .Raven  .talk 19:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
  You've again missed the mark; that the AP has adopted a specific position on deadnaming has nothing to do with whether it's a constructed system or not. Nor does it mean that AP is obliged to follow anything beyond what its internal decision making body decides. Parsecboy (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
  I think perhaps you may have missed my point: that the AP's social consciousness includes heeding outside sources' recommended usage means they are very much aware they write for the readership outside their own organization. This is quite distinct from creating "a conlang (constructed language) just for [them], as though [they] weren't writing for the outside world." – .Raven  .talk 19:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
  The only justification you seem to have is your rather condescending opinion that readers can't handle context (and you've picked most of your examples completely out of context to justify your argument, as if readers would encounter "marine veteran" all by itself floating in the ether). No, I don't think I've missed your point at all. Parsecboy (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
  So if you see "A marine veteran sailed across the Atlantic by himself." — which is meant? – .Raven  .talk 07:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
  I'm done with your tendentious argumentation and will likely go visit the ANI thread. Parsecboy (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose (Summoned by bot) per arguments of Necrothesp and others Absolutely no reason to make an exception from standard English (and Wikipedia) usage. What the USMC prefers is utterly irrelevant. They're marines, just like soldiers, sailors and airmen. And police officers, teachers, bricklayers, accountants, firefighters, doctors, etc, etc, etc. … Also note that the USMC isn't the only marine corps in the world, and this applies to all of them. Or incongruously and perversely, we would have one rule for US marines and another for marines from everywhere else and stylistic chaos whenever they meet in the same article space. Pincrete (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
@Pincrete: Will the next section (currently a placeholder for an RfC) address your concerns? – .Raven .talk 07:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

No, it worsens the stylistic chaos whenever they meet in the same article space. IMO, with no tangible benefit for us AFAI can see. National papers may wish to defer to the conventions of their own national forces, but we have no reason to do so and it is not disrepectful to apply the same stylistic conventions to all forces and all professions everywhere.Pincrete (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Next thing we'll be asked to cap "Soldier". Tony (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
A soldier is different than a Marine, which is a named branch of U.S. service. Apples and Apple. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
No it's not, the United States Marine Corps is the named branch; "marine" is directly analogous to soldier, sailor, etc. This is special pleading.

Tony, friendly reminder that you !voted in this poll on 18 June - you ought to strike out the vote part of your comment here. Parsecboy (talk) 11:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Any participant here may wish to participate at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Marines_RfC,_and_two-week_site_block_proposal. starship .paint (exalt) 08:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

So someone starts an RfC, proves their case with stats and excellent research, so what's the solution? Ban them! Ban them for two weeks, that'll teach 'em. Please consider withdrawing that request, although ANI often is a way to attract others to read the original topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I missed the part where OP proves their case with stats and excellent research. Must be on a different page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment - Lowercasing may be “correct”… but this is one of those cases where enforcement will cause more disruption than leaving it alone. The capitalization of “Marine” is something that people outside of Wikipedia get passionate about. So, if we lowercase, someone will inevitably come along and uppercase it again… and then we will end up in never-ending revert wars as passionate people attempt to “correct the correction”. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. Imagine putting all four of the services' terms together, and the oddity that would result—"soldiers, airmen, Marines, and sailors". It might be the USMC's preference to capitalize it, and some organizations might go along with that, but it doesn't obligate us to. Since the standard is to not capitalize what the other armed forces call their members, the same should be true of "marines". This applies, of course, only when "marine" is being used to refer to individuals who are members of such a force. When part of a name, such as 5th Marine Division, the term should of course be capitalized as a part of a proper noun. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per all the arguments above. The preference of the Marine Corps is irrelevant for our purposes, as we don;t have a vested interest in promoting that service. Until all the other members of the armed forces are capitalized, marines should follow along in the common usage. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Also, User:.Raven must stop WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion, and if they don't they should be partially blocked from this page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose, I am sympathetic to the argument that this amounts to pandering to a special interest group which would cause more problems than it solves. If the support argument had been able to articulate how the capitalization serves an encyclopedic purpose it might be a harder choice, but they don't and "Respect mah Marines" doesn't get them over the line IMO. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2023 (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.

capitalizing gender in sports article names

In sports articles such as Rowing at the 1988 Summer Olympics – Men's coxed four, the gender variant after the endash is typically capitalized, but I can't find anything in the manual of style to indicate why. MOS:SPORTCAPS does not reference it, and MOS:DASH doesn't have anything about capitalization as there is at MOS:COLON. Moreover, I find it's not uncommon for the gender label also to be capitalized in the body of the article, which is certainly incorrect; I suspect that confusion resulting from this title capitalization convention is partially the cause. The only argument I've been presented with in opposition to changing these words to lowercase is that there are thousands of articles which would need to be updated. ~T P W 14:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Who'ya gonna call? Dicklyon. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, that's a holdover from a lack of consensus trying to fix it on tennis articles. If someone wants to start an RFC at MOS:CAPS or some sports project page of WP:VPP or some such, I'll support lowercasing after the dash in general. Dicklyon (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I will word it as broadly as you suggest. ~T P W 18:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Fee/Notes?

In this revert, User:SounderBruce says "separate statements". Mostly, it doesn't seem true that this table column has separate statements for fee and notes, but even if it did, would we capitalize both? I changed the column heading to "Fee/notes", and he reverted me (so far no reverts from lots of other articles besides Sounders). Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Across WP:FOOTY articles, that column is used to note the transfer situation for players, which may or may not include the fee (sometimes this is undisclosed) or other notes (such as intra-club transfers that are calling up from reserve teams). Separating them into different columns would create a pointlessly wider table, whereas combining them is more efficient so long as the distinction is made (through capitalization). Please try to look around at the project standards before making mass changes without consensus. Sounder Bruce 03:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I do understand the point and the use of the heading. I don't understand what provision in MOS:CAPS would lead one to cap "Notes" in this context. Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Un-capping "Notes" implies that the column is solely for fee notes and not transfer notes in general. Sounder Bruce 03:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd use "Fee notes" if that was the intent; the slash indicates an alternative, no caps needed. We prefer sentence case in headings. Dicklyon (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. "Un-capping 'Notes' implies that the column is solely for fee notes ..." doesn't make any sense at all. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

We're not talking about changing to "Fee notes", but to "Fee/notes". Dicklyon (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't notice your quotation marks. You're agreeing that what SounderBruce said made no sense, yes? Dicklyon (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Right. It should be "Fee/notes". We only capitalize the first letter (i.e. we use sentence case) in table headings just as in article headings. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I changed that lone article still using "Fee/Notes" to just "Notes". Let's see if SounderBruce sees that as a better solution. Dicklyon (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

[3] Exception "apostrophed" contractions like d' (French) and 't (Dutch) which are never capitalized; the following noun is, however. Examples: 't Hoen, d'Artagnan But at the beginning of a sentence: D'Artagnan (French)^[1] and still 'tHoen (Dutch)^[2]

[5] Example Martin Van Buren (instead of Martin van Buren, according to the Dutch convention), Mrs. Vanmeer (instead of Mrs. Van Meer) In general, use the style that dominates for that person in reliable sources; for a living subject, prefer the spelling consistently used in the subject's own publications.

[6] There is no objection to dropping the affixes in the mention of a surname in a text for reasons of brevity, provided there is little cause to fear confusion (a wikilink could be used to refer to the correctly spelled and capitalized personal name) and if there are no objections otherwise.

[CMOS1-1] The Chicago Manual of Style (15th ed.). U. of Chicago Press. 2003. p. 313.

[Leidraad-2] "Capital letter at the beginning of a sentence". Woordenlijst.org (in Dutch). Nederlandse Taalunie. Retrieved 5 March 2023.

[CMO2-4] The Chicago Manual of Style (15th ed.). U. of Chicago Press. 2003. pp. 313–17.

[7] Exception: Dutch contractions formed by an apostrophe and a single letter like 't and 's are not capitalized, even at the beginning of a sentence: 't Hoen and 'sGravesande.

[8] See examples at List of family name affixes.

[9] For example, the conventions differ between Belgium and the Netherlands, though they share a language.

[10] Alternative terms for separable affixes include: "particle" in Spanish naming conventions; "nobility particle" in French names; and "tussenvoegsel" in Dutch names. More information on capitalization of compound personal names can be found at the Capitalization article, and at articles linked from Surnames by country (e.g. Italian name).

[11] Exception: Dutch contractions formed by an apostrophe and a single letter like 't and 's are not capitalized, even at the beginning of a sentence: 't Hoen and 'sGravesande. Another exception is made when a lowercase variant has become the dominant one for a specific subject in a substantial majority of reliable independent sources: k.d. lang, will.i.am. In these cases, the name is still capitalized when at the beginning of a sentence.

[12] See examples at List of family name affixes.

[13] For example, the conventions differ between Belgium and the Netherlands, though they share a language.

[14] Alternative terms for separable affixes include: "particle" in Spanish naming conventions; "nobility particle" in French names; and "tussenvoegsel" in Dutch names. More information on capitalization of compound personal names can be found at the Capitalization article, and at articles linked from Surnames by country (e.g. Italian name).

[15] See examples at List of family name affixes.

[16] For example, the conventions differ between Belgium and the Netherlands, though they share a language.

[17] Alternative terms for separable affixes include: "particle" in Spanish naming conventions; "nobility particle" in French names; and "tussenvoegsel" in Dutch names.

[18] Exception: Dutch contractions formed by an apostrophe and a single letter like 't and 's are not capitalized, even at the beginning of a sentence: 't Hoen and 'sGravesande. Another exception is made when a lowercase variant has become the dominant one for a specific subject in a substantial majority of reliable independent sources: k.d. lang, will.i.am. In these cases, the name is still capitalized when at the beginning of a sentence.

[19] See examples at List of family name affixes. Alternative terms for "separable affixes" include: "particle" in Spanish naming conventions; "nobility particle" in French names; and "tussenvoegsel" in Dutch names.

[20] For example, the conventions differ between Belgium and the Netherlands, though they share a language.

[a]

[3]

[b]

[c]

[1]

[2]

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]

[a]

[b]

[c]

[a]

[b]

[c]