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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
The current text reads ( MOS:PERSONAL):
Personal names are the names given to people, but can be used as well for some animals (like race horses) and natural or man-made inanimate objects (like ships and geological formations). 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. In these cases, the name is still capitalized when at the beginning of a sentence, per the normal rules of English. Minor elements in certain names are not capitalized, but this can vary by individual: Marie van Zandt, John Van Zandt. 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.
I propose to amend this as follows:
Personal names are the names given to people, but can be used as well for some animals (like race horses) and natural or man-made inanimate objects (like ships and geological formations). As proper nouns, these names are almost always first-letter capitalized, especially at the beginning of a sentence. Exceptions may occur for foreign surnames. Following the advice of the Chicago Manual of Style (Cf. The Chicago Manual of Style (15th ed.). U. of Chicago Press. 2003. pp. 313–17.) the national conventions on capitalization should be followed. Information on these conventions may be gleaned from a number of Wikipedia articles mentioned in Surnames by country, like Dutch name (Flemish name redirects to this), French name, German name, Italian name, Portuguese name, and Spanish name (some of these titles redirect). The conventions may be somewhat confusing to the Anglophone mind. There are particular difficulties with names that contain ( separable) family-name affixes. Examples of these are given in List of family name affixes. The technical term family-name affix is not universal. The Dutch use tussenvoegsel; the French and Spanish use a translation of the term Grammatical particle though this term actually refers to a different concept. However this may be, these articles may further elucidate the subject and therefore be useful for a correct application of the conventions. The U.S. as a nation of immigrants, presents a special problem as these immigrants often flouted the capitalization conventions of their countries of extraction. Nevertheless, in this case the American practice should be followed. Example Martin Van Buren (instead of Martin van Buren, according to the Dutch convention), DePaepe (instead of De Paepe), Mrs. Vanmeer (instead of Mrs. Van Meer). Finally, be mindful of the conventions on Maiden and married names for women."
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)
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.
Ereunetes ( talk) 22:14, 12 February 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)
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)
Concise version with footnotes
Personal names are the names given to people, but can be used as well for some animals (like race horses) and natural or man-made inanimate objects (like ships and geological formations). As proper nouns, these names are almost always [a] first-letter capitalized, especially at the beginning of a sentence. Exceptions may occur for foreign surnames. Following the advice of the Chicago Manual of Style [3] the national conventions on capitalization should be followed. Information on these conventions may be gleaned from a number of Wikipedia articles mentioned in Surnames by country.The conventions may be somewhat confusing to the Anglophone mind. There are particular difficulties with names that contain ( separable) family-name affixes, like Van Gogh and brothers De Witt. Examples of these are given in List of family name affixes. The technical term family-name affix is not universally used. Dutch name uses tussenvoegsel; French name uses particule; and Spanish naming customs uses particle However this may be, these articles may further elucidate the subject and therefore be useful for a correct application of the conventions. The U.S. as a nation of immigrants, presents a special problem as these immigrants often flouted the capitalization conventions of their countries of extraction. Nevertheless, in this case the American practice should be followed, not "corrected". [b] Finally, be mindful of the conventions on Maiden and married names for women. [c].
Notes
- ^ 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]
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
References
- ^ The Chicago Manual of Style (15th ed.). U. of Chicago Press. 2003. p. 313.
- ^ "Capital letter at the beginning of a sentence". Woordenlijst.org (in Dutch). Nederlandse Taalunie. Retrieved 5 March 2023.
- ^ The Chicago Manual of Style (15th ed.). U. of Chicago Press. 2003. pp. 313–17.
I hope this satisfies the people that asked for "conciseness".-- Ereunetes ( talk) 00:36, 27 February 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)
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)Personal names are the names given to people, but can be used as well for some animals (like race horses) and natural or man-made inanimate objects (like ships and geological formations). As proper nouns, these names are almost always first-letter capitalized, especially at the beginning of a sentence. Foreign names, especially the ones containing separable family-name affixes (footnote: examples in List of family name affixes) may pose special problems, as national capitalization conventions may provide exceptions to the above-mentioned main rule of capitalization, and from the conventions in use in Anglophone countries. These often differ by language community. It is strongly suggested to orient oneself about the specific conventions pertaining to a particular foreign personal name of interest so as to achieve a correct application of those conventions.
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)
@ 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.
Personal names are the names given to people, but can be used as well for some animals (like race horses) and natural or man-made inanimate objects (like ships and geological formations). As proper nouns, these names are almost always first-letter capitalized, especially at the beginning of a sentence. Foreign names, especially the ones containing separable family-name affixes (footnote: examples in List of family name affixes) may pose special problems, as national capitalization conventions may provide exceptions to the above-mentioned main rule of capitalization, and from the conventions in use in Anglophone countries. These often differ by language community. It is strongly suggested to orient oneself about the specific conventions pertaining to a particular foreign personal name of interest so as to achieve a correct application of those conventions.
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)Footnote. Information about these capitalization conventions may be found in Capitalization subsection Compound names and in the "country" articles (like Dutch name etc.), that are mentioned in Surnames by country. Note that the technical term "separable affix" is not universally used in those articles; alternative terms with a similar meaning are tussenvoegsel in Dutch name; particule (sometimes nobility particle) in French name; and particle in Spanish naming conventions.
Behind the scenes Cinderella157 and I have been working on a more concise version of the proposed amendment. This was the result:
Personal names are the names given to people, but can be used as well for some animals (like race horses) and natural or man-made inanimate objects (like ships and geological formations). As proper nouns, these names are almost always first-letter capitalized, especially at the beginning of a sentence [a]. Compound names may contain separable family-name affixes [b]The capitalization conventions for such affixes vary between (foreign) language groups. [c]. In some cases they are capitalized, in others not, depending on the language group. The capitalization conventions for the relevant particular subject's language group should be followed. [d]
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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. 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).
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)
Personal names are the names given to people, but can be used as well for some animals (like race horses) and natural or man-made inanimate objects (like ships and geological formations). As proper nouns, these names are almost always first-letter capitalized, especially at the beginning of a sentence [a] Compound names may contain separable family-name affixes [b] The capitalization conventions for such affixes vary between (foreign) language groups. [c]. In some cases they are capitalized, in others not, depending on the language group. The capitalization conventions for the relevant particular subject's language group should be followed by default. [d] 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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. 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).
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)
Personal names are the names given to people. As proper nouns, these names are first-letter capitalized, especially at the beginning of a sentence. Compound personal names may contain separable family-name affixes [a]The capitalization conventions for such affixes vary between (foreign) language groups. [b]. In some cases they are capitalized, in others not, depending on the language group. The capitalization conventions for the relevant particular subject's language group should be followed. More information on capitalization of compound personal names can be found at the Capitalization and Maiden and married names articles, and at articles linked from Surnames by country (e.g. Italian name. [c]) 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.
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.
Personal names are the names given to people. As proper nouns, these names almost always [a] are first-letter capitalized, especially at the beginning of a sentence. Compound personal names may contain separable family-name affixes. [b] The capitalization conventions for such affixes vary between (foreign) language groups. [c]. In some cases they are capitalized, in others not, depending on the language group. The capitalization conventions for the relevant particular subject's language group should be followed. More information on capitalization of compound personal names can be found at the Capitalization and Maiden and married names articles, and at articles linked from Surnames by country (e.g. Italian name). 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ For example, the conventions differ between Belgium and the Netherlands, though they share a language.
-- Ereunetes ( talk) 23:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
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 publicationscompared with the previous (original) wording:
However, for modern subjects, this can vary by individual, especially outside the country where the surname originated[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,: 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.
should read something more likeand 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)
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)
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:
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.
with Marines of these ranks serving as the senior enlisted Marines in a unit
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.
... 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.
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:
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)
'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)
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)
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)
... 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)
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 vehicledo 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 sailorsas
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)
... British, Canadian, and international publications...." —
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.")
"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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
The current text reads ( MOS:PERSONAL):
Personal names are the names given to people, but can be used as well for some animals (like race horses) and natural or man-made inanimate objects (like ships and geological formations). 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. In these cases, the name is still capitalized when at the beginning of a sentence, per the normal rules of English. Minor elements in certain names are not capitalized, but this can vary by individual: Marie van Zandt, John Van Zandt. 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.
I propose to amend this as follows:
Personal names are the names given to people, but can be used as well for some animals (like race horses) and natural or man-made inanimate objects (like ships and geological formations). As proper nouns, these names are almost always first-letter capitalized, especially at the beginning of a sentence. Exceptions may occur for foreign surnames. Following the advice of the Chicago Manual of Style (Cf. The Chicago Manual of Style (15th ed.). U. of Chicago Press. 2003. pp. 313–17.) the national conventions on capitalization should be followed. Information on these conventions may be gleaned from a number of Wikipedia articles mentioned in Surnames by country, like Dutch name (Flemish name redirects to this), French name, German name, Italian name, Portuguese name, and Spanish name (some of these titles redirect). The conventions may be somewhat confusing to the Anglophone mind. There are particular difficulties with names that contain ( separable) family-name affixes. Examples of these are given in List of family name affixes. The technical term family-name affix is not universal. The Dutch use tussenvoegsel; the French and Spanish use a translation of the term Grammatical particle though this term actually refers to a different concept. However this may be, these articles may further elucidate the subject and therefore be useful for a correct application of the conventions. The U.S. as a nation of immigrants, presents a special problem as these immigrants often flouted the capitalization conventions of their countries of extraction. Nevertheless, in this case the American practice should be followed. Example Martin Van Buren (instead of Martin van Buren, according to the Dutch convention), DePaepe (instead of De Paepe), Mrs. Vanmeer (instead of Mrs. Van Meer). Finally, be mindful of the conventions on Maiden and married names for women."
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)
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.
Ereunetes ( talk) 22:14, 12 February 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)
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)
Concise version with footnotes
Personal names are the names given to people, but can be used as well for some animals (like race horses) and natural or man-made inanimate objects (like ships and geological formations). As proper nouns, these names are almost always [a] first-letter capitalized, especially at the beginning of a sentence. Exceptions may occur for foreign surnames. Following the advice of the Chicago Manual of Style [3] the national conventions on capitalization should be followed. Information on these conventions may be gleaned from a number of Wikipedia articles mentioned in Surnames by country.The conventions may be somewhat confusing to the Anglophone mind. There are particular difficulties with names that contain ( separable) family-name affixes, like Van Gogh and brothers De Witt. Examples of these are given in List of family name affixes. The technical term family-name affix is not universally used. Dutch name uses tussenvoegsel; French name uses particule; and Spanish naming customs uses particle However this may be, these articles may further elucidate the subject and therefore be useful for a correct application of the conventions. The U.S. as a nation of immigrants, presents a special problem as these immigrants often flouted the capitalization conventions of their countries of extraction. Nevertheless, in this case the American practice should be followed, not "corrected". [b] Finally, be mindful of the conventions on Maiden and married names for women. [c].
Notes
- ^ 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]
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
References
- ^ The Chicago Manual of Style (15th ed.). U. of Chicago Press. 2003. p. 313.
- ^ "Capital letter at the beginning of a sentence". Woordenlijst.org (in Dutch). Nederlandse Taalunie. Retrieved 5 March 2023.
- ^ The Chicago Manual of Style (15th ed.). U. of Chicago Press. 2003. pp. 313–17.
I hope this satisfies the people that asked for "conciseness".-- Ereunetes ( talk) 00:36, 27 February 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)
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)Personal names are the names given to people, but can be used as well for some animals (like race horses) and natural or man-made inanimate objects (like ships and geological formations). As proper nouns, these names are almost always first-letter capitalized, especially at the beginning of a sentence. Foreign names, especially the ones containing separable family-name affixes (footnote: examples in List of family name affixes) may pose special problems, as national capitalization conventions may provide exceptions to the above-mentioned main rule of capitalization, and from the conventions in use in Anglophone countries. These often differ by language community. It is strongly suggested to orient oneself about the specific conventions pertaining to a particular foreign personal name of interest so as to achieve a correct application of those conventions.
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)
@ 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.
Personal names are the names given to people, but can be used as well for some animals (like race horses) and natural or man-made inanimate objects (like ships and geological formations). As proper nouns, these names are almost always first-letter capitalized, especially at the beginning of a sentence. Foreign names, especially the ones containing separable family-name affixes (footnote: examples in List of family name affixes) may pose special problems, as national capitalization conventions may provide exceptions to the above-mentioned main rule of capitalization, and from the conventions in use in Anglophone countries. These often differ by language community. It is strongly suggested to orient oneself about the specific conventions pertaining to a particular foreign personal name of interest so as to achieve a correct application of those conventions.
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)Footnote. Information about these capitalization conventions may be found in Capitalization subsection Compound names and in the "country" articles (like Dutch name etc.), that are mentioned in Surnames by country. Note that the technical term "separable affix" is not universally used in those articles; alternative terms with a similar meaning are tussenvoegsel in Dutch name; particule (sometimes nobility particle) in French name; and particle in Spanish naming conventions.
Behind the scenes Cinderella157 and I have been working on a more concise version of the proposed amendment. This was the result:
Personal names are the names given to people, but can be used as well for some animals (like race horses) and natural or man-made inanimate objects (like ships and geological formations). As proper nouns, these names are almost always first-letter capitalized, especially at the beginning of a sentence [a]. Compound names may contain separable family-name affixes [b]The capitalization conventions for such affixes vary between (foreign) language groups. [c]. In some cases they are capitalized, in others not, depending on the language group. The capitalization conventions for the relevant particular subject's language group should be followed. [d]
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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. 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).
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)
Personal names are the names given to people, but can be used as well for some animals (like race horses) and natural or man-made inanimate objects (like ships and geological formations). As proper nouns, these names are almost always first-letter capitalized, especially at the beginning of a sentence [a] Compound names may contain separable family-name affixes [b] The capitalization conventions for such affixes vary between (foreign) language groups. [c]. In some cases they are capitalized, in others not, depending on the language group. The capitalization conventions for the relevant particular subject's language group should be followed by default. [d] 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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. 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).
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)
Personal names are the names given to people. As proper nouns, these names are first-letter capitalized, especially at the beginning of a sentence. Compound personal names may contain separable family-name affixes [a]The capitalization conventions for such affixes vary between (foreign) language groups. [b]. In some cases they are capitalized, in others not, depending on the language group. The capitalization conventions for the relevant particular subject's language group should be followed. More information on capitalization of compound personal names can be found at the Capitalization and Maiden and married names articles, and at articles linked from Surnames by country (e.g. Italian name. [c]) 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.
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.
Personal names are the names given to people. As proper nouns, these names almost always [a] are first-letter capitalized, especially at the beginning of a sentence. Compound personal names may contain separable family-name affixes. [b] The capitalization conventions for such affixes vary between (foreign) language groups. [c]. In some cases they are capitalized, in others not, depending on the language group. The capitalization conventions for the relevant particular subject's language group should be followed. More information on capitalization of compound personal names can be found at the Capitalization and Maiden and married names articles, and at articles linked from Surnames by country (e.g. Italian name). 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ For example, the conventions differ between Belgium and the Netherlands, though they share a language.
-- Ereunetes ( talk) 23:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
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 publicationscompared with the previous (original) wording:
However, for modern subjects, this can vary by individual, especially outside the country where the surname originated[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,: 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.
should read something more likeand 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)
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)
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:
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.
with Marines of these ranks serving as the senior enlisted Marines in a unit
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.
... 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.
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:
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)
'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)
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)
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)
... 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)
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 vehicledo 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 sailorsas
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)
... British, Canadian, and international publications...." —
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.")
"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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)