This is an archive of past discussions. 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 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
It is my recollection that the section "Proper names" was merged into MOS:CAPS from a WP page of the same name not all that long ago. Regardless of the semantics, it is a common WP practice to refer to words and phrases that are consistently capitalised as proper nouns|names as defined in the lead of MOS:CAPS. I would observe that the section heading may (and has) been construed to create an exception to the lead definition/criteria. I would therefore propose removing this section from MOS:CAPS but retaining the sub-sections therein and have boldly done so per this edit. I would move the associated shortcuts to the lead but I have not done this yet. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized.And how do we (WP) determine what is a proper name? Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Although these rules have been standardized, there are enough gray areas that it can often be unclear both whether an item qualifies as a proper name and whether it should be capitalized: "the Cuban missile crisis" is often capitalized ("Cuban Missile Crisis") and often not, regardless of its syntactic status or its function in discourse. Most style guides give decisive recommendations on capitalization, but not all of them go into detail on how to decide in these gray areas if words are proper nouns or not and should be capitalized or not.
About two years ago, the pro-lower case editors began pushing & getting consensus on quite a few topics. At some point, there has to be a line that shouldn't be crossed. We can't lower case everything. GoodDay ( talk) 20:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
It's important to remember that whether something is a proper name or not and whether something should be capitalized or not are two different questions. These concepts are often conflated. Proper names are capitalized, but the mere fact of being consistently capitalized does not mean that something is a proper name. For example, brand names (e.g., "Chevrolet") and product names (e.g., "Camaro") are not proper names, but they are capitalized. Adjectives derived from the names of places (e.g., "Roman") are not proper names, but they are capitalized. Please see my accompanying edit about this. — BarrelProof ( talk) 22:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
"only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia". That doesn't always come out the way I think it should, but it's an effective compromise. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 01:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
"only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia"is the most meaningful interpretation/compromise for WP purposes. I know some editors, such as CinderellaNNN, like to get all theoretical about what's a proper name and what's not, but I value data over theory. I agree with them on removing that odd paragraph. Dicklyon ( talk) 02:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized. Such names are frequently a source of conflict, especially when different cultures, using different names, "claim" someone or something as their own. Wikipedia does not adjudicate such disputes, but as a general rule uses the name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English. Alternative names are often given in parentheses for greater clarity and fuller information.(emphasis added)
In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized. Such [proper] names are frequently a source of conflict, especially when different cultures, using different [proper] names, "claim" someone or something as their own. Wikipedia does not adjudicate such disputes, but as a general rule uses the [proper] name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English. Alternative [proper] names are often given in parentheses for greater clarity and fuller information.The first sentence and the start of the second (
Such names) establish that in the rest of the paragraph name is referring to a proper name (ie we are using a shortened form of the fuller noun phrase proper name). The first sentence acknowledges we capitalise proper names but does not intrinsically tell us anything else about proper names. In full, the paragraph is dealing with alternative proper names such as Mumbai and Bombay and not with whether something is or isn't a proper name - ie we must first determine if we are dealing with a proper name. Cinderella157 ( talk) 04:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Let's be honest about this. It's gonna come down to an article-by-article basis. One RM at a time. No blanket rule. GoodDay ( talk) 04:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
"only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized"? To follow that rule requires data collection and human judgement, so it's a rule that requires discussion on an "article-by-article basis". SchreiberBike | ⌨ 13:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
OP comment: This discussion has substantially diverged from the substantive question.
Peter coxhead would suggest we (WP) determine what is a proper name by understanding
Proper noun and the discussion of capitalization there.
Reading proper noun, it tells us that proper names are not descriptive of the referent, they cannot normally be modified by articles or another determiner (except perhaps the) and, while they have a specific referent, this is not a defining property since the definite article (the) used with a common name also has a specific referent. Reading and understanding
proper noun would cause us to downcase the titles of many articles. The proper name article then becomes a bit inconsistent and acknowledges the grey areas which are the crux of most capitalisation discussions. It is of little help in resolving these.
Per SchreiberBike, we rely on the guidance of the lead to determine what is "conventionally capitalised" - and thereby resolve these grey areas. Randy Kryn would opine that important things deserve a proper name. This is an argument of capitalisation for emphasis, distinction or significance and we have specific advice at MOS:SIGNIFCAPS not to do this. Sorry Randy :)
Regardless though, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proper names does not implore us to use and understand proper noun to determine what is or isn't a proper name. Rather, it speaks to determining the most appropriate name when there are alternative proper names. We have WP:COMMONNAME for this. There is then a question of whether demonyms (section on Peoples and their languages) really belongs as a subsection since proper name would clearly state that demonyms are not proper nouns|names (even if they are capitalised).
Substantive question: the substantive question is whether we should delete the section heading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proper names (and the paragraph immediately following) or not. If we did, the subsections therein would then move up a level. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Such names .... By this, it refers back to the first sentence. This is explicitly saying that "names" , in this context, means "proper names" - ie
Such [proper] names ...It is using "name" as a shortened form of the fuller term, proper name. Where the paragraph continues (
... the name which is ...) it is still explicitly using "name" to mean "proper name" (ie
... the [proper] name which is ...) since the text has not told us that there is a change to "name" being used as a shortened form of the fuller term, "proper name". The subject paragraph therefore tells us how to choose between alternative proper names (eg Mumbai or Bombay). Where you would strike,
especially when different cultures, using different names, "claim" someone or something as their own, this is context that helps explain the type of "dispute" that the subject paragraph would address. Despite what you assert, it tells us nothing about a choice of capitalisation. Consequently, it really has no place at MOS:CAPS, which is about determining what should or should not be capitalised. WP:COMMONNAME is part of WP:AT. It too is about choices between alternative names (eg Mumbai v Bombay or leopard seal v sea leopard). WP:COMMONNAME does not address capitalisation of a name; this is addressed in a separate section of WP:AT at WP:TITLEFORMAT. It would be spurious to suggest that WP:COMMONNAME addresses the matter of capitalisation. While WP:COMMONNAME does state:
... as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources ..., it continues:
When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources ...Where the subject paragraph here states:
... uses the name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English.If one acknowledges that the name
most familiar to readers of Englishis the name
most frequently usedin English language sources, there is no substantive difference between the advice at WP:COMMONNAME and the advice of the subject paragraph. Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
However, I've re-read the material, and it's quick to go through: "In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized." This is true, and it makes sense to say so, and in particular to link to Proper noun AKA Proper name (linguistics), in distinction from Proper name (philosophy), the latter concept being the source of the vast majority of confusion people bring to RM discussions claiming that various descriptive phrases are proper names when they are not, linguistically speaking (which is the only rubric by which they have any connection to capitalization). Next: "Such names are frequently a source of conflict, especially when different cultures, using different names, "claim" someone or something as their own." This is true. We are subtly reminding people not to editwar and bring PoV concerns to bear on name-capitalization disputes, and if anything we should be doing that more explictly. Last: "Wikipedia does not adjudicate such disputes, but as a general rule uses the name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English. Alternative names are often given in parentheses for greater clarity and fuller information." This is both correct and instructive, and consistent with but not duplicative of WP:COMMONNAME, which only addresses the article title; MoS is about what to do after the article title. This material is then followed by explicit citation to article title policy and naming-convention guidelines when it comes to titles. No problem there; we should be cross-referencing between related guidance.
So, the deletion rationale here simply makes no sense to me, and I therefore oppose deletion unless some much clearer rationale for it is provided, at which point I might reconsider. The material has had consensus for many years; it's just not always lived at the same page address. To the [very great] extent that we have problems at RM with people claiming things are proper names when they clearly are not, that problem is not caused or exacerbated by this section, though the section may be the place to introduce new wording to address that problem (and it will need a cross-reference especially to
MOS:SIGCAPS).
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 19:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I do think there needs to be a section about link capitalization here. I can add it, but… any input? 21:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac Henni ( talk • contribs)
Per here. - wolf 23:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I would like to have clear consensus on how article titles should be added in ```cite``` templates. Currently, there is no explicit guideline, which I think should change. Any input would be appreciated. 21:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac Henni ( talk • contribs)
I'm mostly talking about _external_ articles, ie, articles in refs. Maccore Henni user talk Respond using tb, please. 17:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
MOS:DEGREE and MOS:DEGREES both point to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Academic degrees. However, that subsection/anchor no longer exists (I personally was trying to end up at MOS:UNITSYMBOLS for the temperature symbol). Opencooper ( talk) 06:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
@
FyzixFighter:
Our general rule is that "the word the at the start of a name is uncapitalized, regardless of the institution's own usage"
. It seems that this rule is not generally followed for
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I've found no specific mention of an exception to our usual rule at
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints, but that page consistently capitalizes The midsentence. Also, I see that The is almost always capitalized on Wikipedia in text and titles about the LDS Church, e.g.
History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Should the LDS Church be an exception? Are there any other exceptions? Thank you,
SchreiberBike |
⌨ 02:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I hadn't noticed this thread and started another at WT:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints, where it says to cap "The" in article names, but doesn't say anything about otherwise. This is bizarre, as we never have different rules for article names than in sentences, except for the first letter (sentence case, you know). As for capping, some sources like the NYTimes consistently use lowercase, so there's no reason we can't follow our own style and do the same. See NYTimes search. Dicklyon ( talk) 19:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The only exception I am aware of today is The Hague, but there are probably others I don't know of. The others which have been pointed out are errors which need fixing. Most fixes happen without fuss, but people have strong feelings about things like the LDS Church, Disney and the Citadel, so usually I make the correction and if someone changes it back I let it slide, but this one has come up many times so I brought it here. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 18:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
"the word the at the start of a name is uncapitalized, regardless of the institution's own usage".
The example of
The New York Times is different because that is the name of a creative work and italicized. We use the full name of a newspaper the same way we would of a book or painting. I see that in some uses on the New York Times's page there are errors such as where it says "The paper is owned by The New York Times Company"
but errors in Wikipedia can't be used as examples of how to do things right. I'm sure among our 6,838,034 articles, there are many examples like
The Home Depot and
The Citadel which are wrong, but there are many examples which are right and we have a guideline which should apply to all institutions equally.
SchreiberBike |
⌨ 18:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
A1 | ...was an employee of The Hershey Company | ...was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints | ? |
A2 | ...was an employee of the Hershey Company | ...was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints | ? |
A3 | ...was an employee of the Hershey Company | ...was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints | |
A4 | ...was an employee of The Hershey Company | ...was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints | |
A5 | ...was an employee of the Hershey Company | ...was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints | ? |
A6 | ...the Pennsylvania-based Hershey Company | ...the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints |
B1 | Produced by: The Hershey Company | Denomination: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints | |
B2 | Produced by: the Hershey Company | Denomination: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints |
The proposals above are support:oppose 7:3 and 6:2. Is that sufficient or do we need a formal RfC? If we decide it's necessary, I'm willing to coordinate the development of the request or someone else could. I hope we can all work on a proposal together so that it will be clear and fair. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 22:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Considering MOS:THEINST, MOS:THECAPS, and WP:NCCAPS, should the word "the" in " The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" be capitalized when appearing in the middle of article titles?InfiniteNexus ( talk) 21:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
There was one discussion on this page a year ago which was continued at MOS:BLP. The second discussion, to quote User:EEng, "collapsed under its own weight" and died out without any resolution. I would like to revive this since it is a source of ongoing disagreement. As it is not specific to BLPs, I am doing so here this time.
The issue is, should section headers be
2018 Electionsvs. (A2)
2018 elections
2018 and 2019 Electionsvs. (B2)
2018 and 2019 elections
Postwar period: Educatorvs. (C2)
Postwar period: educator
2021–present: Educatorvs. (D2)
2021–present: educator
2021: Educatorvs. (E2)
2021: educator
1891–1940: Early historyvs (F2)
1891–1940: early historyfrom Glycine (watch)
2005–2007: Career beginningsvs (G2)
2005–2007: career beginningsfrom Lady Gaga
2003–2007: Production work, Encore and musical hiatusvs (H2)
2003–2007: production work, Encore and musical hiatusfrom Eminem
Although this is generalized to numbers, in reality it seems to apply mostly or perhaps exclusively to years.
One example without a number (year) is included because
MOS:COLON is in play here, which says to use lower case following the colon unless what follows is a complete sentence. So per that guideline, most of the above should be lower case (C2-G2). That is unless someone has a reason that
MOS:COLON does not apply to section headers. The other even more relevant guidelines are
MOS:HEADINGS which says that section headings should use
sentence case and
MOS:SECTIONCAPS which says sentence case means Capitalize the first letter of the first word
. This seems to be the source of the inconsistency. Some people interpret that literally and conclude the year is a number, not a word. Others read into that somehow that the year (or year range) is an "introductory clause" and "not part of the actual sentence" - sentence case begins after that. Other have just said that capitalizing the non-numeric element "looks better".
I see these options:
Capitalize the first character of the first element if it is a letter(A2-H2)
Early history (1891-1940):or
Early history, 1891-1940:
There are certainly examples of #3 - see Atari and George Clooney. But there are cases where doing that would be unnatural like in Clayton Kershaw. Even if we were to say #3 is preferred, we still need to decide what to do in the other cases and pick a second choice (#1 or #2).
Note: I have left out any choice that leaves A1 & B1 since it seems clear that without a colon, section headers follow article titles and there is no exception in titles when the first "word" is a year. Also, option #2 treats post-colon capitalization uniformly; there could be a case for making that dependent on whether the "introductory clause" was numeric or not (C2 & D1/E1). For simplicity, that can be follow-up discussion that would not be necessary if an consensus emerges for option #1. MB 17:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
As evidenced above, the WP:RSP that format their titles in sentence-case and capitalize the next word after the introductory colon include BBC, ABC News, AP News, LA Times, NPR, Politico, Reuters, The Independent, USA Today, CNN, and TechCrunch, as well as a UK government site that popped up on my search.
It would be best if Wikipedia follows the majority of reliable sources in capitalizing the first word after a colon in a heading, which is typically what is done when determining
WP:MOS. –
spongeworthy93
(talk) 19:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Option 1 We only capitalise the first letter of the first word when using sentence case. I see no reason not to treat an initial number as the first word. At
MOS:NUMNOTES, we already have advice to avoid starting a sentence with a figure. This reasonably extends to other uses of sentence case. It also gives examples of sentences beginning with a number, thereby illustrating how such a sentence would be capitalise - noting that the word after the initial number is not capitalised. As to comments here about capitalising after a colon, we also have specific advice on this at
MOS:COLON: When what follows the colon is also a complete sentence, start it with a capital letter, but otherwise, do not capitalize after a colon except where doing so is needed for another reason, as for a proper name.
Headings are not complete sentences; therefore, the advice is clearly no. Changing the advice here would create an inconsistency with
WP:MOS and this is not the place for a discussion that would make such a change. As to any specific change to our guidance, I think we should reserve that matter until we have a consensus on the principle to be applied.
Cinderella157 (
talk) 01:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone happen to know how the Ohio State University example got into MOS:THEINST? I wonder whether that is really appropriate. Why say "researchers at the Ohio State University" instead of "researchers at Ohio State University"? Is our MoS inadvertently implying that "the" should be included when referring to that institution? The article title doesn't have "the". People generally don't say "the Indiana University", "the Colorado State University", "the Texas Christian University" or "the Western Kentucky University". — BarrelProof ( talk) 02:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The change was made by User:Ground Zero in August 2015 after discussion WT:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 19#Moving along. It previously said to go with the institution's preference, which came into MOSCAPS in 2012 here, apparently copying out of WP:MOS. It got into there in this edit in Jan. 2010, with nothing in support on the talk page. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I thnk it's OK to leave the example with lowercase the, as it indicates that we've thought about it and rejected their specialized capping; but we could also put an alternative where the is dropped. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Should [Tthe be capitalized mid-sentence and mid-article title when referring to [T]the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Please respond Capitalize or Lower case and explain as you desire. There is an additional section below for discussion and alternatives.
Sentence examples:
or
Article title examples:
or
The text above, and the notifications and headings below were developed and finalized at User:SchreiberBike/Workspace/Mid-sentence and mid-article title capitalization of the in the full name of the LDS Church and the associated talk page. That proposal was announced on this page above. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 12:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
The following pages have been notified:
Hi all, I think I applied the RFC to pretty much everything, but there are likely to still be some hanging threads. For example, I am a page mover but I think there was at least one page (that I now cannot find) which was admin-protected. If you come across anything else which applies, please change it! And if you cannot, permissions wise, feel free to drop a note here to find someone who can. Please and thanks!— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
This was closed prematurely and or was not added to enough notifications. Not including the full name of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" accurately, by including a capital "t" in The is considered offensive by many and while it is not always Wikipedia policy not to offend we do try not to offend, such as using the correct pronouns for individuals, using preferred names for individuals etc. In addition I believe it violates BLP by not including the name correctly. Many individuals of that faith have articles and by changing the name of the church to which they belong, is changing something that many of them hold dear. Please reconsider this RFC. -- VViking Talk Edits 17:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Note that the article The begins with a capital letter. This is an important part of the title, for the Church is the official organization of baptized believers who have taken upon themselves the name of Christ" and "
The word The indicates the unique position of the restored Church among the religions of the world". I certainly appreciate that the LDS church feels they are in a "unique position" among those in the LDS movement. But I do not think Wikipedia should recognize it as a "unique" entity in that respect. It is another church in a movement of churches. We do not treat any individual sect as "unique" or "special" on Wikipedia. We have a manual of style that prefers consistency, and this is another example of that consistency. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
... regardless of the institution's own usage. Like all MoS guidelines, this guideline is clearly not meant to please everybody but rather to impose uniformity on WP articles. I'm sure the folks at the Ohio State University and the Walt Disney Company are equally unhappy at Wikipedia for using a lowercase "the", but we're not going to grant them an exception either. Same thing for the LDS Church. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 04:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
The issue has come up in relatively recent move requests at Talk:Long Island iced tea and Talk:Black and tan and is currently under discussion at Talk:Donkey punch (cocktail), but it seems never to have been discussed here. A commenter in the Long Island iced tea discussion invoked the spirit of MOS:GAMECAPS in arguing that "cocktail names are absolutely not proper names any more than any other...recipe topics, from ethnic dishes to herbal teas to breakfast foods to coffee cultivars to traditional stuff drinks like malta and hotchata..." I agree, but this conflicts with the International Bartenders Association style guide. Please discuss if you care. — AjaxSmack 19:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I got a copy of the 1930 Savoy cocktails book to see what they did back in the day. It's a loss – all the cocktail names are all-caps, and all ingredients are capped (e.g. Lemon Juice). Not much signal there. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
A user has changed all occurrences of "web" to "Web" throughout the article, apparently because World Wide Web mentions "the Web" (but itself doesn't capitalized "web" throughout that article). Another opinion would be helpful. MB 01:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm looking for comment on the capitalisation practices of some titles and classes of people. In light of MOS:OFFICE ("Offices, titles, and positions...are common nouns"), I feel that titles like Keeper of the Seals, Kapitan Cina (but not the "Cina"), and Chief Court Mistress should not be capitalised. ( Category:Positions of authority has some titles of single individuals like paramount leader and lowercased, while others like Supreme Leader (North Korean title) are not.) Based on guidelines, can all of these be boldly lowercased assuming sources are mixed?
Likewise some social classes like yangban are lowercased while others like Cabang Atas are not. Of noble titles, Maharaja is capitalised while sheikh is not. Don (honorific) is mixed within the article. I don't see a specific guideline covering these, but can they be boldly lowercased assuming sources are mixed? — AjaxSmack 06:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
We've had lots of discussions about "Black", but I don't find anything on the related concept "Indigenous", and similar terms. There's a question about capitalization of that one in a currently open RM, with some claims that a Wikiproject has decided it should be capped, but I can't even find any evidence for a such a discussion or consensus, or even a statement of a decision or convention (but there is a section on style guides that links guides that do capitalize). Have I missed something? Dicklyon ( talk) 17:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I didn't really mean for this to be an RFC-like debate. Just wondering whether it has been discussed before. It seems not, but I'll ask at the project, too. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Edit to MOS:CAPS people may have missed this edit with the summary: Per talk, adding "Indigenous" example and footnote w/ shortcut links to other pages that go into more detail. Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
It is my recollection that the section "Proper names" was merged into MOS:CAPS from a WP page of the same name not all that long ago. Regardless of the semantics, it is a common WP practice to refer to words and phrases that are consistently capitalised as proper nouns|names as defined in the lead of MOS:CAPS. I would observe that the section heading may (and has) been construed to create an exception to the lead definition/criteria. I would therefore propose removing this section from MOS:CAPS but retaining the sub-sections therein and have boldly done so per this edit. I would move the associated shortcuts to the lead but I have not done this yet. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized.And how do we (WP) determine what is a proper name? Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Although these rules have been standardized, there are enough gray areas that it can often be unclear both whether an item qualifies as a proper name and whether it should be capitalized: "the Cuban missile crisis" is often capitalized ("Cuban Missile Crisis") and often not, regardless of its syntactic status or its function in discourse. Most style guides give decisive recommendations on capitalization, but not all of them go into detail on how to decide in these gray areas if words are proper nouns or not and should be capitalized or not.
About two years ago, the pro-lower case editors began pushing & getting consensus on quite a few topics. At some point, there has to be a line that shouldn't be crossed. We can't lower case everything. GoodDay ( talk) 20:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
It's important to remember that whether something is a proper name or not and whether something should be capitalized or not are two different questions. These concepts are often conflated. Proper names are capitalized, but the mere fact of being consistently capitalized does not mean that something is a proper name. For example, brand names (e.g., "Chevrolet") and product names (e.g., "Camaro") are not proper names, but they are capitalized. Adjectives derived from the names of places (e.g., "Roman") are not proper names, but they are capitalized. Please see my accompanying edit about this. — BarrelProof ( talk) 22:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
"only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia". That doesn't always come out the way I think it should, but it's an effective compromise. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 01:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
"only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia"is the most meaningful interpretation/compromise for WP purposes. I know some editors, such as CinderellaNNN, like to get all theoretical about what's a proper name and what's not, but I value data over theory. I agree with them on removing that odd paragraph. Dicklyon ( talk) 02:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized. Such names are frequently a source of conflict, especially when different cultures, using different names, "claim" someone or something as their own. Wikipedia does not adjudicate such disputes, but as a general rule uses the name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English. Alternative names are often given in parentheses for greater clarity and fuller information.(emphasis added)
In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized. Such [proper] names are frequently a source of conflict, especially when different cultures, using different [proper] names, "claim" someone or something as their own. Wikipedia does not adjudicate such disputes, but as a general rule uses the [proper] name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English. Alternative [proper] names are often given in parentheses for greater clarity and fuller information.The first sentence and the start of the second (
Such names) establish that in the rest of the paragraph name is referring to a proper name (ie we are using a shortened form of the fuller noun phrase proper name). The first sentence acknowledges we capitalise proper names but does not intrinsically tell us anything else about proper names. In full, the paragraph is dealing with alternative proper names such as Mumbai and Bombay and not with whether something is or isn't a proper name - ie we must first determine if we are dealing with a proper name. Cinderella157 ( talk) 04:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Let's be honest about this. It's gonna come down to an article-by-article basis. One RM at a time. No blanket rule. GoodDay ( talk) 04:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
"only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized"? To follow that rule requires data collection and human judgement, so it's a rule that requires discussion on an "article-by-article basis". SchreiberBike | ⌨ 13:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
OP comment: This discussion has substantially diverged from the substantive question.
Peter coxhead would suggest we (WP) determine what is a proper name by understanding
Proper noun and the discussion of capitalization there.
Reading proper noun, it tells us that proper names are not descriptive of the referent, they cannot normally be modified by articles or another determiner (except perhaps the) and, while they have a specific referent, this is not a defining property since the definite article (the) used with a common name also has a specific referent. Reading and understanding
proper noun would cause us to downcase the titles of many articles. The proper name article then becomes a bit inconsistent and acknowledges the grey areas which are the crux of most capitalisation discussions. It is of little help in resolving these.
Per SchreiberBike, we rely on the guidance of the lead to determine what is "conventionally capitalised" - and thereby resolve these grey areas. Randy Kryn would opine that important things deserve a proper name. This is an argument of capitalisation for emphasis, distinction or significance and we have specific advice at MOS:SIGNIFCAPS not to do this. Sorry Randy :)
Regardless though, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proper names does not implore us to use and understand proper noun to determine what is or isn't a proper name. Rather, it speaks to determining the most appropriate name when there are alternative proper names. We have WP:COMMONNAME for this. There is then a question of whether demonyms (section on Peoples and their languages) really belongs as a subsection since proper name would clearly state that demonyms are not proper nouns|names (even if they are capitalised).
Substantive question: the substantive question is whether we should delete the section heading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proper names (and the paragraph immediately following) or not. If we did, the subsections therein would then move up a level. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Such names .... By this, it refers back to the first sentence. This is explicitly saying that "names" , in this context, means "proper names" - ie
Such [proper] names ...It is using "name" as a shortened form of the fuller term, proper name. Where the paragraph continues (
... the name which is ...) it is still explicitly using "name" to mean "proper name" (ie
... the [proper] name which is ...) since the text has not told us that there is a change to "name" being used as a shortened form of the fuller term, "proper name". The subject paragraph therefore tells us how to choose between alternative proper names (eg Mumbai or Bombay). Where you would strike,
especially when different cultures, using different names, "claim" someone or something as their own, this is context that helps explain the type of "dispute" that the subject paragraph would address. Despite what you assert, it tells us nothing about a choice of capitalisation. Consequently, it really has no place at MOS:CAPS, which is about determining what should or should not be capitalised. WP:COMMONNAME is part of WP:AT. It too is about choices between alternative names (eg Mumbai v Bombay or leopard seal v sea leopard). WP:COMMONNAME does not address capitalisation of a name; this is addressed in a separate section of WP:AT at WP:TITLEFORMAT. It would be spurious to suggest that WP:COMMONNAME addresses the matter of capitalisation. While WP:COMMONNAME does state:
... as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources ..., it continues:
When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources ...Where the subject paragraph here states:
... uses the name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English.If one acknowledges that the name
most familiar to readers of Englishis the name
most frequently usedin English language sources, there is no substantive difference between the advice at WP:COMMONNAME and the advice of the subject paragraph. Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
However, I've re-read the material, and it's quick to go through: "In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized." This is true, and it makes sense to say so, and in particular to link to Proper noun AKA Proper name (linguistics), in distinction from Proper name (philosophy), the latter concept being the source of the vast majority of confusion people bring to RM discussions claiming that various descriptive phrases are proper names when they are not, linguistically speaking (which is the only rubric by which they have any connection to capitalization). Next: "Such names are frequently a source of conflict, especially when different cultures, using different names, "claim" someone or something as their own." This is true. We are subtly reminding people not to editwar and bring PoV concerns to bear on name-capitalization disputes, and if anything we should be doing that more explictly. Last: "Wikipedia does not adjudicate such disputes, but as a general rule uses the name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English. Alternative names are often given in parentheses for greater clarity and fuller information." This is both correct and instructive, and consistent with but not duplicative of WP:COMMONNAME, which only addresses the article title; MoS is about what to do after the article title. This material is then followed by explicit citation to article title policy and naming-convention guidelines when it comes to titles. No problem there; we should be cross-referencing between related guidance.
So, the deletion rationale here simply makes no sense to me, and I therefore oppose deletion unless some much clearer rationale for it is provided, at which point I might reconsider. The material has had consensus for many years; it's just not always lived at the same page address. To the [very great] extent that we have problems at RM with people claiming things are proper names when they clearly are not, that problem is not caused or exacerbated by this section, though the section may be the place to introduce new wording to address that problem (and it will need a cross-reference especially to
MOS:SIGCAPS).
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 19:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I do think there needs to be a section about link capitalization here. I can add it, but… any input? 21:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac Henni ( talk • contribs)
Per here. - wolf 23:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I would like to have clear consensus on how article titles should be added in ```cite``` templates. Currently, there is no explicit guideline, which I think should change. Any input would be appreciated. 21:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac Henni ( talk • contribs)
I'm mostly talking about _external_ articles, ie, articles in refs. Maccore Henni user talk Respond using tb, please. 17:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
MOS:DEGREE and MOS:DEGREES both point to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Academic degrees. However, that subsection/anchor no longer exists (I personally was trying to end up at MOS:UNITSYMBOLS for the temperature symbol). Opencooper ( talk) 06:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
@
FyzixFighter:
Our general rule is that "the word the at the start of a name is uncapitalized, regardless of the institution's own usage"
. It seems that this rule is not generally followed for
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I've found no specific mention of an exception to our usual rule at
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints, but that page consistently capitalizes The midsentence. Also, I see that The is almost always capitalized on Wikipedia in text and titles about the LDS Church, e.g.
History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Should the LDS Church be an exception? Are there any other exceptions? Thank you,
SchreiberBike |
⌨ 02:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I hadn't noticed this thread and started another at WT:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints, where it says to cap "The" in article names, but doesn't say anything about otherwise. This is bizarre, as we never have different rules for article names than in sentences, except for the first letter (sentence case, you know). As for capping, some sources like the NYTimes consistently use lowercase, so there's no reason we can't follow our own style and do the same. See NYTimes search. Dicklyon ( talk) 19:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The only exception I am aware of today is The Hague, but there are probably others I don't know of. The others which have been pointed out are errors which need fixing. Most fixes happen without fuss, but people have strong feelings about things like the LDS Church, Disney and the Citadel, so usually I make the correction and if someone changes it back I let it slide, but this one has come up many times so I brought it here. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 18:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
"the word the at the start of a name is uncapitalized, regardless of the institution's own usage".
The example of
The New York Times is different because that is the name of a creative work and italicized. We use the full name of a newspaper the same way we would of a book or painting. I see that in some uses on the New York Times's page there are errors such as where it says "The paper is owned by The New York Times Company"
but errors in Wikipedia can't be used as examples of how to do things right. I'm sure among our 6,838,034 articles, there are many examples like
The Home Depot and
The Citadel which are wrong, but there are many examples which are right and we have a guideline which should apply to all institutions equally.
SchreiberBike |
⌨ 18:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
A1 | ...was an employee of The Hershey Company | ...was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints | ? |
A2 | ...was an employee of the Hershey Company | ...was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints | ? |
A3 | ...was an employee of the Hershey Company | ...was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints | |
A4 | ...was an employee of The Hershey Company | ...was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints | |
A5 | ...was an employee of the Hershey Company | ...was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints | ? |
A6 | ...the Pennsylvania-based Hershey Company | ...the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints |
B1 | Produced by: The Hershey Company | Denomination: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints | |
B2 | Produced by: the Hershey Company | Denomination: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints |
The proposals above are support:oppose 7:3 and 6:2. Is that sufficient or do we need a formal RfC? If we decide it's necessary, I'm willing to coordinate the development of the request or someone else could. I hope we can all work on a proposal together so that it will be clear and fair. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 22:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Considering MOS:THEINST, MOS:THECAPS, and WP:NCCAPS, should the word "the" in " The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" be capitalized when appearing in the middle of article titles?InfiniteNexus ( talk) 21:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
There was one discussion on this page a year ago which was continued at MOS:BLP. The second discussion, to quote User:EEng, "collapsed under its own weight" and died out without any resolution. I would like to revive this since it is a source of ongoing disagreement. As it is not specific to BLPs, I am doing so here this time.
The issue is, should section headers be
2018 Electionsvs. (A2)
2018 elections
2018 and 2019 Electionsvs. (B2)
2018 and 2019 elections
Postwar period: Educatorvs. (C2)
Postwar period: educator
2021–present: Educatorvs. (D2)
2021–present: educator
2021: Educatorvs. (E2)
2021: educator
1891–1940: Early historyvs (F2)
1891–1940: early historyfrom Glycine (watch)
2005–2007: Career beginningsvs (G2)
2005–2007: career beginningsfrom Lady Gaga
2003–2007: Production work, Encore and musical hiatusvs (H2)
2003–2007: production work, Encore and musical hiatusfrom Eminem
Although this is generalized to numbers, in reality it seems to apply mostly or perhaps exclusively to years.
One example without a number (year) is included because
MOS:COLON is in play here, which says to use lower case following the colon unless what follows is a complete sentence. So per that guideline, most of the above should be lower case (C2-G2). That is unless someone has a reason that
MOS:COLON does not apply to section headers. The other even more relevant guidelines are
MOS:HEADINGS which says that section headings should use
sentence case and
MOS:SECTIONCAPS which says sentence case means Capitalize the first letter of the first word
. This seems to be the source of the inconsistency. Some people interpret that literally and conclude the year is a number, not a word. Others read into that somehow that the year (or year range) is an "introductory clause" and "not part of the actual sentence" - sentence case begins after that. Other have just said that capitalizing the non-numeric element "looks better".
I see these options:
Capitalize the first character of the first element if it is a letter(A2-H2)
Early history (1891-1940):or
Early history, 1891-1940:
There are certainly examples of #3 - see Atari and George Clooney. But there are cases where doing that would be unnatural like in Clayton Kershaw. Even if we were to say #3 is preferred, we still need to decide what to do in the other cases and pick a second choice (#1 or #2).
Note: I have left out any choice that leaves A1 & B1 since it seems clear that without a colon, section headers follow article titles and there is no exception in titles when the first "word" is a year. Also, option #2 treats post-colon capitalization uniformly; there could be a case for making that dependent on whether the "introductory clause" was numeric or not (C2 & D1/E1). For simplicity, that can be follow-up discussion that would not be necessary if an consensus emerges for option #1. MB 17:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
As evidenced above, the WP:RSP that format their titles in sentence-case and capitalize the next word after the introductory colon include BBC, ABC News, AP News, LA Times, NPR, Politico, Reuters, The Independent, USA Today, CNN, and TechCrunch, as well as a UK government site that popped up on my search.
It would be best if Wikipedia follows the majority of reliable sources in capitalizing the first word after a colon in a heading, which is typically what is done when determining
WP:MOS. –
spongeworthy93
(talk) 19:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Option 1 We only capitalise the first letter of the first word when using sentence case. I see no reason not to treat an initial number as the first word. At
MOS:NUMNOTES, we already have advice to avoid starting a sentence with a figure. This reasonably extends to other uses of sentence case. It also gives examples of sentences beginning with a number, thereby illustrating how such a sentence would be capitalise - noting that the word after the initial number is not capitalised. As to comments here about capitalising after a colon, we also have specific advice on this at
MOS:COLON: When what follows the colon is also a complete sentence, start it with a capital letter, but otherwise, do not capitalize after a colon except where doing so is needed for another reason, as for a proper name.
Headings are not complete sentences; therefore, the advice is clearly no. Changing the advice here would create an inconsistency with
WP:MOS and this is not the place for a discussion that would make such a change. As to any specific change to our guidance, I think we should reserve that matter until we have a consensus on the principle to be applied.
Cinderella157 (
talk) 01:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone happen to know how the Ohio State University example got into MOS:THEINST? I wonder whether that is really appropriate. Why say "researchers at the Ohio State University" instead of "researchers at Ohio State University"? Is our MoS inadvertently implying that "the" should be included when referring to that institution? The article title doesn't have "the". People generally don't say "the Indiana University", "the Colorado State University", "the Texas Christian University" or "the Western Kentucky University". — BarrelProof ( talk) 02:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The change was made by User:Ground Zero in August 2015 after discussion WT:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 19#Moving along. It previously said to go with the institution's preference, which came into MOSCAPS in 2012 here, apparently copying out of WP:MOS. It got into there in this edit in Jan. 2010, with nothing in support on the talk page. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I thnk it's OK to leave the example with lowercase the, as it indicates that we've thought about it and rejected their specialized capping; but we could also put an alternative where the is dropped. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Should [Tthe be capitalized mid-sentence and mid-article title when referring to [T]the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Please respond Capitalize or Lower case and explain as you desire. There is an additional section below for discussion and alternatives.
Sentence examples:
or
Article title examples:
or
The text above, and the notifications and headings below were developed and finalized at User:SchreiberBike/Workspace/Mid-sentence and mid-article title capitalization of the in the full name of the LDS Church and the associated talk page. That proposal was announced on this page above. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 12:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
The following pages have been notified:
Hi all, I think I applied the RFC to pretty much everything, but there are likely to still be some hanging threads. For example, I am a page mover but I think there was at least one page (that I now cannot find) which was admin-protected. If you come across anything else which applies, please change it! And if you cannot, permissions wise, feel free to drop a note here to find someone who can. Please and thanks!— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
This was closed prematurely and or was not added to enough notifications. Not including the full name of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" accurately, by including a capital "t" in The is considered offensive by many and while it is not always Wikipedia policy not to offend we do try not to offend, such as using the correct pronouns for individuals, using preferred names for individuals etc. In addition I believe it violates BLP by not including the name correctly. Many individuals of that faith have articles and by changing the name of the church to which they belong, is changing something that many of them hold dear. Please reconsider this RFC. -- VViking Talk Edits 17:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Note that the article The begins with a capital letter. This is an important part of the title, for the Church is the official organization of baptized believers who have taken upon themselves the name of Christ" and "
The word The indicates the unique position of the restored Church among the religions of the world". I certainly appreciate that the LDS church feels they are in a "unique position" among those in the LDS movement. But I do not think Wikipedia should recognize it as a "unique" entity in that respect. It is another church in a movement of churches. We do not treat any individual sect as "unique" or "special" on Wikipedia. We have a manual of style that prefers consistency, and this is another example of that consistency. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
... regardless of the institution's own usage. Like all MoS guidelines, this guideline is clearly not meant to please everybody but rather to impose uniformity on WP articles. I'm sure the folks at the Ohio State University and the Walt Disney Company are equally unhappy at Wikipedia for using a lowercase "the", but we're not going to grant them an exception either. Same thing for the LDS Church. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 04:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
The issue has come up in relatively recent move requests at Talk:Long Island iced tea and Talk:Black and tan and is currently under discussion at Talk:Donkey punch (cocktail), but it seems never to have been discussed here. A commenter in the Long Island iced tea discussion invoked the spirit of MOS:GAMECAPS in arguing that "cocktail names are absolutely not proper names any more than any other...recipe topics, from ethnic dishes to herbal teas to breakfast foods to coffee cultivars to traditional stuff drinks like malta and hotchata..." I agree, but this conflicts with the International Bartenders Association style guide. Please discuss if you care. — AjaxSmack 19:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I got a copy of the 1930 Savoy cocktails book to see what they did back in the day. It's a loss – all the cocktail names are all-caps, and all ingredients are capped (e.g. Lemon Juice). Not much signal there. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
A user has changed all occurrences of "web" to "Web" throughout the article, apparently because World Wide Web mentions "the Web" (but itself doesn't capitalized "web" throughout that article). Another opinion would be helpful. MB 01:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm looking for comment on the capitalisation practices of some titles and classes of people. In light of MOS:OFFICE ("Offices, titles, and positions...are common nouns"), I feel that titles like Keeper of the Seals, Kapitan Cina (but not the "Cina"), and Chief Court Mistress should not be capitalised. ( Category:Positions of authority has some titles of single individuals like paramount leader and lowercased, while others like Supreme Leader (North Korean title) are not.) Based on guidelines, can all of these be boldly lowercased assuming sources are mixed?
Likewise some social classes like yangban are lowercased while others like Cabang Atas are not. Of noble titles, Maharaja is capitalised while sheikh is not. Don (honorific) is mixed within the article. I don't see a specific guideline covering these, but can they be boldly lowercased assuming sources are mixed? — AjaxSmack 06:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
We've had lots of discussions about "Black", but I don't find anything on the related concept "Indigenous", and similar terms. There's a question about capitalization of that one in a currently open RM, with some claims that a Wikiproject has decided it should be capped, but I can't even find any evidence for a such a discussion or consensus, or even a statement of a decision or convention (but there is a section on style guides that links guides that do capitalize). Have I missed something? Dicklyon ( talk) 17:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I didn't really mean for this to be an RFC-like debate. Just wondering whether it has been discussed before. It seems not, but I'll ask at the project, too. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Edit to MOS:CAPS people may have missed this edit with the summary: Per talk, adding "Indigenous" example and footnote w/ shortcut links to other pages that go into more detail. Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)