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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
People frequenting this talk page, please see this. – ὁ οἶστρος ( talk) 16:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Capitalisation_of_.22AT-LARGE.22_when_not_the_first_word_of_an_article_title. Thanks! -sche ( talk) 16:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a sentiment from the MOS-enforcers that people are circumventing their rules. I would like again point out that the MOS is a guideline and thus malleable. Wikipedia:Article_titles is a POLICY. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that all users should normally follow. Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
To quote Blueboar "Provisions are intentionally not hierarchical. Titles are determined by examining all the provisions and codicils mentioned... and doing so all at the same time. There is no "higher up" in the titling process.... in fact there is no "process". It is a balancing act. Which provisions and codicils will be given more or less weight changes from one title determination to another. COMMONNAME is usually give a lot of weight... but it does not necessarily "trump" other provisions. We never ignore the MOS... we simply weigh it against other factors. How much weight it is given, compared to any other factors, depends on the specific title we are talking about... and our final decision will be different from one title to the next. It seems that this is a difficult concept for most MOS oriented editors to grasp... they seem to want firm and fast "rules" to follow - "do X"... "don't do Y". The problem is that WP:AT is intentionally not "rules" based. It's consensus based. It essentially says - To help you reach a consensus: examine X, but at the same time examine Y... Hopefully X and Y will not conflict... but when they do, weigh them against each other in the unique context of the specific article you are working on. This means that in one article, X will be given more weight... while in another, different article, Y will be given more weight."
"I see editors attempting to overenforce. Exceptions should be easier than that. --SmokeyJoe"
It is rather clear to a large group of people (bird watchers, fiction consumers, a myriad of other editors) that the MOS is being over-enforced as an unbreakable rule. Context is being ignore and the MOS is applied wikipedia wide. I invite all the bird watchers and anyone else interested to come weigh in on proposed changes to Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles and the commonname subsection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Discussion_.28WP:COMMONNAME_and_formatting.29_part_2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xkcdreader ( talk • contribs) 08:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a widespread lack of standardization when it comes to the capitalization of movements:
Generic name: | Proper name: | Specific movement: |
This is only a small sample of affected articles in Category:Movements - there are a lot of them. — C M B J 07:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
is there anything dictating the precedent for historical events such as Suez Crisis, Nullification Crisis, Cuban missile crisis? Asdf98761 ( talk) 01:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I've started an RfC on capitalization of prepositions in composition titles (especially the four-letter rule). Your feedback is appreciated. -- BDD ( talk) 21:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I added basic instructions on how to get article titles to italicize, where we tell people to italicize, here. This was erased in SlimVirgin's recent blanket revert of all my edits here, but isn't even related in any way to the rest of them. Is there any actual substantive objection to this addition? Could there even be one? It's a basic principle of exhortatory and instructional writing that you don't demand something the reader is unlikely to understand how to do already, without telling them how to do it (either directly or with a pointer to some other resource). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 08:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
An important discussion started on Talk:Crowned crane and Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 March#Black crowned crane now moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#A new proposal regarding bird article names.
Mama meta modal ( talk) 20:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC).
Look at Category:Dog_breeds, there are dozens of capitalized articles. This exception exists in wikipedia. This conventions should reflect current usage. Editors shouldn't use this page to make publicity of they would like wikipedia to be, and hide how things are currently done. Maybe it can worded in a different way. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 16:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
naming conventions determine the title, and the running text follows the title– Actually the exact opposite often happens, and WP:AT defers in many different places to WP:MOS, as do all the NC guidelines. I don't "insist" on anything. You keep trying to add dogs, especially, uniquely dogs, to pages like this one without discussion and sometimes I but sometimes other revert that and suggest it needs an extensive discussion, and it doesn't make any sense to limit that discussion to dogs or have it be on some backwater NC page no one reads. I'm also suggesting to you separately that, as a strategic matter, now is a really poor time to launch that discussion, because of a high level of "issue fatigue" on Wikipedia about animals and capitalization.
This page in particular is way not the place for it, because it's just a summary of other guidelines' rules on capitalization and how they apply to titles; not a thing on this page originated here, and no one is going to take seriously a
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS arrived at by the tiny number of people who watchlist this page, especially if it makes up a controversial new rule or contradicts an existing one.
WT:MOS is the proper venue, because this will be about usage in running text in many thousands of articles (all breed and cultivar articles and probably all other articles that mention them), and that will filter down, just as species capitalization does, to the titles question. The facts that many breed articles are capitalized and that people keep trying to RM them is strong evidence of
WP:FAITACCOMPLI action to move all articles to capitalized names for
WP:SSF reasons by fanciers and breeders, against the wishes of many other editors. "Look, they're capitalized so AT and MOS have to say to capitalize them" doesn't work; there's clearly an active controversy about this whole idea. I don't sort-of-support capitalizing breeds; I just know that the arguments are different, and I'm sympathetic to some of them and (more to the point) the sources behind them. There is no dissonance, because the guidelines do not say anything about breeds at all; it's left entirely up to editorial discretion, and that's fine for now. No sky is going to fall if that continues for a while. I don't know what you mean by "Did you consider that you might be causing the problems with your removals?"
What problems?
This part didn't make much sense to me either: "Maybe you don't want this used as an argument in favor of bird capitalization?"
They're distinct issues; if I were playing some "hide facts I don't like" game, I would not be adding such things to an entire section at
User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names#Capitalization of breeds and cultivars, with a sourcing section there at
#External sources on breeds. Just getting started on it. Perhaps add to it? Help identify in off-WP sources (not just dog books, I mean mainstream sources) where and how this is playing out in the real world. I'm not opposed to capitalizing birds because I don't like birds or birders; I'm opposed to it because it's not supported by real-world usage outside of field guides (which do it only for visual scanning emphasis) and by some not all ornithology journals. The cause for animal breeds is different; there's much more mainstream print capitalization. The thing is, a lot of MOS/AT watchers will oppose it simply because they think it's "wrong" and eactly like species names. It takes significant research to determine if this is actually true (if it is, then I'm all for lower-case; my reading so far suggests it may not be so simple). —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
11:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
"Already a consensus"
: I just addressed that. People who really, really, really like the capitalization moved the articles to upper case (and often wrote them that way to begin with), back when there were few rules on WP and no one really cared. Now that people do care, and we've identified both consistency and the
WP:ASTONISH effect to be important here, these moves are being questioned (well, they were already being questioned much earlier, but people were mostly unwilling to debate it very far). You've already been reverted by multiple people in multiple places (as have some others, I believe Shyamal was one; I can go dig it up later, but have to go do some work for a client this afternoon) on adding dog breeds and (in someone else's case I think) some other breeds. That's a further indication of lack of consensus. See the MOS archives for previous discussions, too.
[1] The current situation is okay - no one is decapitalizing these articles in a mad spree, and no one is madly capitalizing all animal names; it's stable for now.
I've written up short versions of both "takes" on breed capitalization at the draft WP:Manual of Style/Organisms#Formal breeds, cultivars, and varieties. It should be obvious that (after adding in any other pro/con points) they're the basis of a future WP:RFC on the matter. I'm not saying "Don't resolve this", I'm saying "let's resolve this after a breather". You'll see that I've gone to some trouble to neutrally write up both sides. If you look at the rest of that page, it's pretty clear I'm not trying to play any games; I'm working full-bore to have MOS agree with every nomenclature code under the sun, as much as is practical, without driving our editors mad. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on
Talk:Crowned Crane about four articles related to birds species. The rationale is that there is no reason why bird names should be capitalised while Wikipedia recommends that all species names should not be written with capitals. Please participate
in the discussion.
Thank you!
Mama meta modal (
talk)
09:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC).
There is now also an ongoing request for comments on the same subject: Talk:Crowned Crane#Request for comments.
Do not hesitate to come and comment on this question. Mama meta modal ( talk) 08:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC).
The discussion was closed (and the pages moved) on 26 March 2014, see Talk:Crowned crane#Requested move for details.
Mama meta modal ( talk) 20:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC).
Given that they are clearly controversial, and were undiscussed, and are pushing a POV for which there is no consensus (they directly contradict MOS:LIFE), I've mostly reverted Shyamal's overly bold changes to the organisms material here and at WP:NCFAUNA. Among (but not exhaustive of) the problem with these change are:
Actually, the entire section is redundant with NCFAUNA. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 13:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Removed (for the second time) here. This needs no real consensus discussion; there cannot be a valid consensus to include blatant falsehoods in a guideline about what is and is not a guideline elsewhere. The error was added without announcing it or discussing it, here. There was no consensus for the change to begin with, not even an erroneous consensus. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 08:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
{{
rfc|style|policy|rfcid=73563BF}}
Should an actual guideline, e.g. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Organisms ( WP:NCCAPS), refer [2] to an wikiproject essay as a "guideline" and link to it in a hatnote where the actual guideline defers to other actual guidelines, e.g. WP:Manual of Style, WP:Naming conventions (fauna), and WP:Naming conventions (flora)?
This is not about mention/linking of an essay in prose, as occurs in this case in the paragraph after the hatnote.
Objections were raised as to the neutrality level of the original wording. As of this writing, the change I sought has been unreverted, mooting the dispute potentially, but the RfC may be useful anyway. The discussion, to the extent there has been any that hasn't been about the neutrality wording, has also predictably shifted to disputes about WP:BIRDS#Naming and its rationales, instead of the questions raised by the RFC (deference of WP guidelines to wikiproject essays and mislabeling them as such). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Old version
|
---|
This RfC was misleadingly WP:CANVASSed, as an attack on bird name capitalization, here. I don't think there was any kind of bad faith; people just tend to jump to heated conclusions on these matters (thus WP:ARBATC). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC) |
The top of the page says "occasional exceptions may apply."
Editors of bird articles have been capitalising for the duration of the wikiproject.
All knowledgeable editors of bird articles prefer to do it this way.
The only objectors in the main are SMcCandlish who seems to spend alot of time trying to tell and enforce other editors how to edit, and a handful of editors who don't actually edit bird articles.
The capitalisation wasn't created on a whim but reflects usage outside wikipedia by official sources.
The bird exception is currently located on the page currently,
as is allowed by the nice little box at the top,
and doesn't disagree with fauna currently either.
We cannot reasonably cite government sources as somehow authoritative on style, as they capitalize, boldface, italicize, all-cap, abbreviate, word-order-reverse, de-hyphenate, and otherwise do things with style, in so many substandard ways you could write a hilarious book about it. Government writing is pretty much the least reliable source for style in English writing, even if some govt. projects, properly funded and without political agendas, can produce reliable factual results.
There are no "official sources" in ornithology. Even the IOC was not appointed by a world-ratified UN treaty, or God, or any other source of authority that makes it "official". That particular fallacy is one of the most tiresome in the entire debate. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I posted a restatement that I hope will work, but I note that I've been unreverted on the WP:NCCAPS change anyway, so this is at least temporarily moot. I won't reopen a new RfC unless someone thinks that would be useful. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC) clarified 01:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
This page is using non-consensus wording that contradicts both WP:NCFAUNA and WP:MOS to which it defers. It's just made up, POV-pushing blather. I fixed this here:
Common names of species generally do not have each word capitalized, except where proper nouns appear (maple tree, zebra, but Przewalski's horse).
WP:WikiProject Birds arrived at a
local consensus to recommend using
IOC naming, which (generally) capitalizes each word. Where more than one capitalization is possible, redirects should be created from the alternative form(s). For details, see the topic-specific pages listed above.
but it got reverted by SlimVirgin in her mass-revert of everything I did here. Are there any substantive objections to getting NCCAPS to stop contracting these other guidelines for not reason? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 08:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The simplest solution to all of the related problems on this page (see above mess) are to turn the entire section in question, WP:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Organisms, into the following:
OrganismsSee: Wikipedia:Manual of Style's "Animals, plants, and other organisms" section, as well as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)'s "Capitalisation and italicisation" section, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)'s "Guidelines" section.
I.e., do not try to reinterpret and synthesize these guidelines (which still conflict to this day) here at NCCAPS, just turn the hatnote of cross-references to the guidelines into a non-hatnote (with clearer links), and that's the entire section. Because WP:NCCAPS isn't really a guideline per se but summary of capitalization style guidelines as they apply to article titles, arguably the only sane thing to do here is link editors to where the conflicting guidelines are, and let them do their best to interpret them, until those conflicts are resolved (and in most cases there is no conflict at all). Unless and until the conflicts are resolved, any attempt at interpretation here is doomed to being a POV-pushing exercise that does nothing but generate an extra layer of disputation. The summary here kind of sucked anyway, even aside from conflicts, because it didn't address all kinds of more detailed stuff covered at NCFAUNA and NCFLORA. As it is now, doesn't serve anyone's interests. If at a later date it's determined that a summary would be helpful here after all, one could be redone from scratch collaboratively. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
One of Shyamal's big changes was not controversial, and I restored and tweaked it here, but it got clobbered again when SlimVirgin blanket reverted all my changes here.
It changed Common names of species generally do not have each word capitalized... to Common names of species and of general types of organisms do not have each word capitalized...; i.e. it corrected the unhelpful over-specificity of "species" (a restriction that MOS itself did not impose - it's unclear where it came from in NCCAPS), and also removed a redundant, repetitive word (it would just be poor writing to say something applies "generally" when you immediately spell out how it doesn't apply, or to use a "...general...generally..." pattern in the same sentence).
So, again, does anyone have an actual substantive objection to the change? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 09:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Addressing attempt to change the subject
|
---|
|
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
PS, re: the "scallops" analogy. Why do you think your long-winded version "is better"? By what measure? Most writing guides would disagree with you, and would advise strongly against adding such unnecessary wording. I actually should have written the example as "I don't eat meat, except for scallops", I'll admit; I was in a hurry and forgot the "for". It doesn't affect the analogy in any way, though my self-correction weakens your case further. I'm skeptical anyone would agree that the doubly redundant and pointlessly tumid "I generally don't eat meat, but I make an exception for scallops" is in any way preferable to "I don't eat meat, except for scallops", unless as dialogue for the Bulwer-Lytton Contest. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The consensus is now clear. The relevant pages will soon be checked and made consistent with Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Bird common name decapitalisation.
H. H. Wander Strata ( talk) 08:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC).
In the archives, I see a prior discussion of Assistant stage manager, but I'm looking for guidance about capitalization for the titles of articles about more formal job titles, formal certification titles, and names of scholarly degrees. I have not found specific guidance. If no explicit guidance is currently provided in Wikipedia guidelines, I suggest that we add some. There is an ongoing move discussion about this at Talk:Registered professional accountant. Here are a few relevant examples of current article titles:
A suggested interpretation is that the title of an article about a job title ordinarily would not have every word capitalized, but the title of an article about a specific academic degree or certification qualification ordinarily would (or at least often would) have every word capitalized.
— BarrelProof ( talk) 18:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
A Google survey of some terms suggests the following trends among some mainstream newspapers:
Here's a tally of the first ten google hits. I counted capitalization in headlines only when they used mixed case, and I omitted press releases, ads, other non-article results, and uses of a term just in a list of terms. I used the terms chief executive officer, certified public accountant, microsoft certified system(s) engineer, bachelor of arts, and president of the United States.
CEO | CPA | MCSE | BA | POTUS | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
New York Times | 8 lc, 0 UC | 10 lc, 0 UC | 2 lc, 0 UC | 5 lc, 4 UC | 7 lc, 0 UC |
Los Angeles Times | 9 lc, 0 UC | 9 lc, 0 UC | 3 lc, 0 UC | 9 lc, 1 UC | 10 lc, 0 UC |
Washington Post | 7 lc, 0 UC | 10 lc, 0 UC | 0 lc, 1 UC[3] | 6 lc, 3 UC[6] | 4 lc, 0 UC |
The WSJ | 10 lc, 0 UC | 9 lc, 1 UC[1] | 0 lc, 2 UC[1][5] | 6 lc, 4 UC | 8 lc, 1 UC[5] |
Toronto Star | 10 lc, 0 UC | 8 lc, 2 UC[1] | 0 lc, 0 UC | 6 lc, 4 UC | 10 lc, 0 UC |
Melbourne Herald Sun | 10 lc, 0 UC | 3 lc, 0 UC | 0 lc, 0 UC | 2 lc, 8 UC | 2 lc, 8 UC |
The Guardian (UK) | 10 lc, 0 UC | 5 lc, 0 UC[2] | 0 lc, 1 UC | 7 lc, 3 UC | 7 lc, 3 UC |
Times of India | 7 lc, 3 UC[4] | 5 lc, 0 UC | 2 lc, 5 UC | 3 lc, 5 UC | 3 lc, 6 UC |
The WSJ will use uppercase for a title before a person's name, like "Chief Executive Jim Smith said...", but not after the name "Jim Smith, the chief executive, said..." ( Example article with both styles).
Agyle ( talk) 05:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
A couple of general points.
Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand why typing Tott takes me straight to TotT instead, or even how to create a separate redirect page, assuming someone might find the anagram worth keeping. Any explanations of what's going on please? Sparafucil ( talk) 09:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper noun.
I disagree. If an article is titled Theory of Germanically influenced locutions in modern African languages, you have an adverb, "Germanically", and an adjective, "African", that should both have capital initial letters. The rule should say Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless they would be capitalized for some reason other than being in an article title. Nor should it say "unless they would always be capitalized: there may be a particular occasion for capitalization that would apply in the context in question but not in all contexts. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
dot the i is an example. Capitalizing the "i" was proposed twice, and there has been "no consensus". Also, Star Trek into Darkness became Star Trek Into Darkness because consensus wanted to capitalize "into", despite the guideline's rules discouraging it. Shall we change rules to reflect the situations? If not, shall we implement WP:IAR to disregard the rules? If not, what are other related rules? If none, what else can we do if we cannot re-propose? -- George Ho ( talk) 23:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Someone's opened an RfC on using lower case for animal breeds except where they contain proper names, and this is followed by an alternative proposal based on breed standards. Both proposals would be a naming convention as well as style rule, so regulars here are liable to be interested in commenting. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
There's a slowly rumbling renaming war going on around several articles on Spanish-language television shows produced in the United States. Spanish-language (from Spain and Mexico) shows seem to generally, though not always, only capitalise the first word; US shows (in English) capitalise all major words (as per the conventions listed here) - but the intersection is causing some confusion. Has anyone any basic solutions? Grutness... wha? 13:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Capitalization in foreign-language titles varies, even over time within the same language; generally, retain the style of the original.This seems clear. Peter coxhead ( talk) 06:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Proposed solution: I'm agreed with Grutness that this isn't "borrowed from another language", and greed with Peter that the section he quoted is applicable. In answer to Grutness's question later, the resolution of the conflict between different sources capitalizing differently is a) do what the actual original show/publication does, and when that's indetermintae (e.g. because its' ALL-CAPPED or all-lowercase for stylistic effect), then do what the majority of the English-language sources do, because this is the English-language Wikipedia. I.e. prefer the English not Spanish edition of TV guide, etc. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:39, 2 October 2014 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
People frequenting this talk page, please see this. – ὁ οἶστρος ( talk) 16:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Capitalisation_of_.22AT-LARGE.22_when_not_the_first_word_of_an_article_title. Thanks! -sche ( talk) 16:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a sentiment from the MOS-enforcers that people are circumventing their rules. I would like again point out that the MOS is a guideline and thus malleable. Wikipedia:Article_titles is a POLICY. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that all users should normally follow. Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
To quote Blueboar "Provisions are intentionally not hierarchical. Titles are determined by examining all the provisions and codicils mentioned... and doing so all at the same time. There is no "higher up" in the titling process.... in fact there is no "process". It is a balancing act. Which provisions and codicils will be given more or less weight changes from one title determination to another. COMMONNAME is usually give a lot of weight... but it does not necessarily "trump" other provisions. We never ignore the MOS... we simply weigh it against other factors. How much weight it is given, compared to any other factors, depends on the specific title we are talking about... and our final decision will be different from one title to the next. It seems that this is a difficult concept for most MOS oriented editors to grasp... they seem to want firm and fast "rules" to follow - "do X"... "don't do Y". The problem is that WP:AT is intentionally not "rules" based. It's consensus based. It essentially says - To help you reach a consensus: examine X, but at the same time examine Y... Hopefully X and Y will not conflict... but when they do, weigh them against each other in the unique context of the specific article you are working on. This means that in one article, X will be given more weight... while in another, different article, Y will be given more weight."
"I see editors attempting to overenforce. Exceptions should be easier than that. --SmokeyJoe"
It is rather clear to a large group of people (bird watchers, fiction consumers, a myriad of other editors) that the MOS is being over-enforced as an unbreakable rule. Context is being ignore and the MOS is applied wikipedia wide. I invite all the bird watchers and anyone else interested to come weigh in on proposed changes to Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles and the commonname subsection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Discussion_.28WP:COMMONNAME_and_formatting.29_part_2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xkcdreader ( talk • contribs) 08:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a widespread lack of standardization when it comes to the capitalization of movements:
Generic name: | Proper name: | Specific movement: |
This is only a small sample of affected articles in Category:Movements - there are a lot of them. — C M B J 07:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
is there anything dictating the precedent for historical events such as Suez Crisis, Nullification Crisis, Cuban missile crisis? Asdf98761 ( talk) 01:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I've started an RfC on capitalization of prepositions in composition titles (especially the four-letter rule). Your feedback is appreciated. -- BDD ( talk) 21:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I added basic instructions on how to get article titles to italicize, where we tell people to italicize, here. This was erased in SlimVirgin's recent blanket revert of all my edits here, but isn't even related in any way to the rest of them. Is there any actual substantive objection to this addition? Could there even be one? It's a basic principle of exhortatory and instructional writing that you don't demand something the reader is unlikely to understand how to do already, without telling them how to do it (either directly or with a pointer to some other resource). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 08:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
An important discussion started on Talk:Crowned crane and Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 March#Black crowned crane now moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#A new proposal regarding bird article names.
Mama meta modal ( talk) 20:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC).
Look at Category:Dog_breeds, there are dozens of capitalized articles. This exception exists in wikipedia. This conventions should reflect current usage. Editors shouldn't use this page to make publicity of they would like wikipedia to be, and hide how things are currently done. Maybe it can worded in a different way. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 16:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
naming conventions determine the title, and the running text follows the title– Actually the exact opposite often happens, and WP:AT defers in many different places to WP:MOS, as do all the NC guidelines. I don't "insist" on anything. You keep trying to add dogs, especially, uniquely dogs, to pages like this one without discussion and sometimes I but sometimes other revert that and suggest it needs an extensive discussion, and it doesn't make any sense to limit that discussion to dogs or have it be on some backwater NC page no one reads. I'm also suggesting to you separately that, as a strategic matter, now is a really poor time to launch that discussion, because of a high level of "issue fatigue" on Wikipedia about animals and capitalization.
This page in particular is way not the place for it, because it's just a summary of other guidelines' rules on capitalization and how they apply to titles; not a thing on this page originated here, and no one is going to take seriously a
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS arrived at by the tiny number of people who watchlist this page, especially if it makes up a controversial new rule or contradicts an existing one.
WT:MOS is the proper venue, because this will be about usage in running text in many thousands of articles (all breed and cultivar articles and probably all other articles that mention them), and that will filter down, just as species capitalization does, to the titles question. The facts that many breed articles are capitalized and that people keep trying to RM them is strong evidence of
WP:FAITACCOMPLI action to move all articles to capitalized names for
WP:SSF reasons by fanciers and breeders, against the wishes of many other editors. "Look, they're capitalized so AT and MOS have to say to capitalize them" doesn't work; there's clearly an active controversy about this whole idea. I don't sort-of-support capitalizing breeds; I just know that the arguments are different, and I'm sympathetic to some of them and (more to the point) the sources behind them. There is no dissonance, because the guidelines do not say anything about breeds at all; it's left entirely up to editorial discretion, and that's fine for now. No sky is going to fall if that continues for a while. I don't know what you mean by "Did you consider that you might be causing the problems with your removals?"
What problems?
This part didn't make much sense to me either: "Maybe you don't want this used as an argument in favor of bird capitalization?"
They're distinct issues; if I were playing some "hide facts I don't like" game, I would not be adding such things to an entire section at
User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names#Capitalization of breeds and cultivars, with a sourcing section there at
#External sources on breeds. Just getting started on it. Perhaps add to it? Help identify in off-WP sources (not just dog books, I mean mainstream sources) where and how this is playing out in the real world. I'm not opposed to capitalizing birds because I don't like birds or birders; I'm opposed to it because it's not supported by real-world usage outside of field guides (which do it only for visual scanning emphasis) and by some not all ornithology journals. The cause for animal breeds is different; there's much more mainstream print capitalization. The thing is, a lot of MOS/AT watchers will oppose it simply because they think it's "wrong" and eactly like species names. It takes significant research to determine if this is actually true (if it is, then I'm all for lower-case; my reading so far suggests it may not be so simple). —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
11:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
"Already a consensus"
: I just addressed that. People who really, really, really like the capitalization moved the articles to upper case (and often wrote them that way to begin with), back when there were few rules on WP and no one really cared. Now that people do care, and we've identified both consistency and the
WP:ASTONISH effect to be important here, these moves are being questioned (well, they were already being questioned much earlier, but people were mostly unwilling to debate it very far). You've already been reverted by multiple people in multiple places (as have some others, I believe Shyamal was one; I can go dig it up later, but have to go do some work for a client this afternoon) on adding dog breeds and (in someone else's case I think) some other breeds. That's a further indication of lack of consensus. See the MOS archives for previous discussions, too.
[1] The current situation is okay - no one is decapitalizing these articles in a mad spree, and no one is madly capitalizing all animal names; it's stable for now.
I've written up short versions of both "takes" on breed capitalization at the draft WP:Manual of Style/Organisms#Formal breeds, cultivars, and varieties. It should be obvious that (after adding in any other pro/con points) they're the basis of a future WP:RFC on the matter. I'm not saying "Don't resolve this", I'm saying "let's resolve this after a breather". You'll see that I've gone to some trouble to neutrally write up both sides. If you look at the rest of that page, it's pretty clear I'm not trying to play any games; I'm working full-bore to have MOS agree with every nomenclature code under the sun, as much as is practical, without driving our editors mad. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on
Talk:Crowned Crane about four articles related to birds species. The rationale is that there is no reason why bird names should be capitalised while Wikipedia recommends that all species names should not be written with capitals. Please participate
in the discussion.
Thank you!
Mama meta modal (
talk)
09:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC).
There is now also an ongoing request for comments on the same subject: Talk:Crowned Crane#Request for comments.
Do not hesitate to come and comment on this question. Mama meta modal ( talk) 08:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC).
The discussion was closed (and the pages moved) on 26 March 2014, see Talk:Crowned crane#Requested move for details.
Mama meta modal ( talk) 20:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC).
Given that they are clearly controversial, and were undiscussed, and are pushing a POV for which there is no consensus (they directly contradict MOS:LIFE), I've mostly reverted Shyamal's overly bold changes to the organisms material here and at WP:NCFAUNA. Among (but not exhaustive of) the problem with these change are:
Actually, the entire section is redundant with NCFAUNA. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 13:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Removed (for the second time) here. This needs no real consensus discussion; there cannot be a valid consensus to include blatant falsehoods in a guideline about what is and is not a guideline elsewhere. The error was added without announcing it or discussing it, here. There was no consensus for the change to begin with, not even an erroneous consensus. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 08:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
{{
rfc|style|policy|rfcid=73563BF}}
Should an actual guideline, e.g. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Organisms ( WP:NCCAPS), refer [2] to an wikiproject essay as a "guideline" and link to it in a hatnote where the actual guideline defers to other actual guidelines, e.g. WP:Manual of Style, WP:Naming conventions (fauna), and WP:Naming conventions (flora)?
This is not about mention/linking of an essay in prose, as occurs in this case in the paragraph after the hatnote.
Objections were raised as to the neutrality level of the original wording. As of this writing, the change I sought has been unreverted, mooting the dispute potentially, but the RfC may be useful anyway. The discussion, to the extent there has been any that hasn't been about the neutrality wording, has also predictably shifted to disputes about WP:BIRDS#Naming and its rationales, instead of the questions raised by the RFC (deference of WP guidelines to wikiproject essays and mislabeling them as such). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Old version
|
---|
This RfC was misleadingly WP:CANVASSed, as an attack on bird name capitalization, here. I don't think there was any kind of bad faith; people just tend to jump to heated conclusions on these matters (thus WP:ARBATC). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC) |
The top of the page says "occasional exceptions may apply."
Editors of bird articles have been capitalising for the duration of the wikiproject.
All knowledgeable editors of bird articles prefer to do it this way.
The only objectors in the main are SMcCandlish who seems to spend alot of time trying to tell and enforce other editors how to edit, and a handful of editors who don't actually edit bird articles.
The capitalisation wasn't created on a whim but reflects usage outside wikipedia by official sources.
The bird exception is currently located on the page currently,
as is allowed by the nice little box at the top,
and doesn't disagree with fauna currently either.
We cannot reasonably cite government sources as somehow authoritative on style, as they capitalize, boldface, italicize, all-cap, abbreviate, word-order-reverse, de-hyphenate, and otherwise do things with style, in so many substandard ways you could write a hilarious book about it. Government writing is pretty much the least reliable source for style in English writing, even if some govt. projects, properly funded and without political agendas, can produce reliable factual results.
There are no "official sources" in ornithology. Even the IOC was not appointed by a world-ratified UN treaty, or God, or any other source of authority that makes it "official". That particular fallacy is one of the most tiresome in the entire debate. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I posted a restatement that I hope will work, but I note that I've been unreverted on the WP:NCCAPS change anyway, so this is at least temporarily moot. I won't reopen a new RfC unless someone thinks that would be useful. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC) clarified 01:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
This page is using non-consensus wording that contradicts both WP:NCFAUNA and WP:MOS to which it defers. It's just made up, POV-pushing blather. I fixed this here:
Common names of species generally do not have each word capitalized, except where proper nouns appear (maple tree, zebra, but Przewalski's horse).
WP:WikiProject Birds arrived at a
local consensus to recommend using
IOC naming, which (generally) capitalizes each word. Where more than one capitalization is possible, redirects should be created from the alternative form(s). For details, see the topic-specific pages listed above.
but it got reverted by SlimVirgin in her mass-revert of everything I did here. Are there any substantive objections to getting NCCAPS to stop contracting these other guidelines for not reason? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 08:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The simplest solution to all of the related problems on this page (see above mess) are to turn the entire section in question, WP:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Organisms, into the following:
OrganismsSee: Wikipedia:Manual of Style's "Animals, plants, and other organisms" section, as well as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)'s "Capitalisation and italicisation" section, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)'s "Guidelines" section.
I.e., do not try to reinterpret and synthesize these guidelines (which still conflict to this day) here at NCCAPS, just turn the hatnote of cross-references to the guidelines into a non-hatnote (with clearer links), and that's the entire section. Because WP:NCCAPS isn't really a guideline per se but summary of capitalization style guidelines as they apply to article titles, arguably the only sane thing to do here is link editors to where the conflicting guidelines are, and let them do their best to interpret them, until those conflicts are resolved (and in most cases there is no conflict at all). Unless and until the conflicts are resolved, any attempt at interpretation here is doomed to being a POV-pushing exercise that does nothing but generate an extra layer of disputation. The summary here kind of sucked anyway, even aside from conflicts, because it didn't address all kinds of more detailed stuff covered at NCFAUNA and NCFLORA. As it is now, doesn't serve anyone's interests. If at a later date it's determined that a summary would be helpful here after all, one could be redone from scratch collaboratively. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
One of Shyamal's big changes was not controversial, and I restored and tweaked it here, but it got clobbered again when SlimVirgin blanket reverted all my changes here.
It changed Common names of species generally do not have each word capitalized... to Common names of species and of general types of organisms do not have each word capitalized...; i.e. it corrected the unhelpful over-specificity of "species" (a restriction that MOS itself did not impose - it's unclear where it came from in NCCAPS), and also removed a redundant, repetitive word (it would just be poor writing to say something applies "generally" when you immediately spell out how it doesn't apply, or to use a "...general...generally..." pattern in the same sentence).
So, again, does anyone have an actual substantive objection to the change? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 09:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Addressing attempt to change the subject
|
---|
|
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
PS, re: the "scallops" analogy. Why do you think your long-winded version "is better"? By what measure? Most writing guides would disagree with you, and would advise strongly against adding such unnecessary wording. I actually should have written the example as "I don't eat meat, except for scallops", I'll admit; I was in a hurry and forgot the "for". It doesn't affect the analogy in any way, though my self-correction weakens your case further. I'm skeptical anyone would agree that the doubly redundant and pointlessly tumid "I generally don't eat meat, but I make an exception for scallops" is in any way preferable to "I don't eat meat, except for scallops", unless as dialogue for the Bulwer-Lytton Contest. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The consensus is now clear. The relevant pages will soon be checked and made consistent with Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Bird common name decapitalisation.
H. H. Wander Strata ( talk) 08:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC).
In the archives, I see a prior discussion of Assistant stage manager, but I'm looking for guidance about capitalization for the titles of articles about more formal job titles, formal certification titles, and names of scholarly degrees. I have not found specific guidance. If no explicit guidance is currently provided in Wikipedia guidelines, I suggest that we add some. There is an ongoing move discussion about this at Talk:Registered professional accountant. Here are a few relevant examples of current article titles:
A suggested interpretation is that the title of an article about a job title ordinarily would not have every word capitalized, but the title of an article about a specific academic degree or certification qualification ordinarily would (or at least often would) have every word capitalized.
— BarrelProof ( talk) 18:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
A Google survey of some terms suggests the following trends among some mainstream newspapers:
Here's a tally of the first ten google hits. I counted capitalization in headlines only when they used mixed case, and I omitted press releases, ads, other non-article results, and uses of a term just in a list of terms. I used the terms chief executive officer, certified public accountant, microsoft certified system(s) engineer, bachelor of arts, and president of the United States.
CEO | CPA | MCSE | BA | POTUS | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
New York Times | 8 lc, 0 UC | 10 lc, 0 UC | 2 lc, 0 UC | 5 lc, 4 UC | 7 lc, 0 UC |
Los Angeles Times | 9 lc, 0 UC | 9 lc, 0 UC | 3 lc, 0 UC | 9 lc, 1 UC | 10 lc, 0 UC |
Washington Post | 7 lc, 0 UC | 10 lc, 0 UC | 0 lc, 1 UC[3] | 6 lc, 3 UC[6] | 4 lc, 0 UC |
The WSJ | 10 lc, 0 UC | 9 lc, 1 UC[1] | 0 lc, 2 UC[1][5] | 6 lc, 4 UC | 8 lc, 1 UC[5] |
Toronto Star | 10 lc, 0 UC | 8 lc, 2 UC[1] | 0 lc, 0 UC | 6 lc, 4 UC | 10 lc, 0 UC |
Melbourne Herald Sun | 10 lc, 0 UC | 3 lc, 0 UC | 0 lc, 0 UC | 2 lc, 8 UC | 2 lc, 8 UC |
The Guardian (UK) | 10 lc, 0 UC | 5 lc, 0 UC[2] | 0 lc, 1 UC | 7 lc, 3 UC | 7 lc, 3 UC |
Times of India | 7 lc, 3 UC[4] | 5 lc, 0 UC | 2 lc, 5 UC | 3 lc, 5 UC | 3 lc, 6 UC |
The WSJ will use uppercase for a title before a person's name, like "Chief Executive Jim Smith said...", but not after the name "Jim Smith, the chief executive, said..." ( Example article with both styles).
Agyle ( talk) 05:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
A couple of general points.
Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand why typing Tott takes me straight to TotT instead, or even how to create a separate redirect page, assuming someone might find the anagram worth keeping. Any explanations of what's going on please? Sparafucil ( talk) 09:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper noun.
I disagree. If an article is titled Theory of Germanically influenced locutions in modern African languages, you have an adverb, "Germanically", and an adjective, "African", that should both have capital initial letters. The rule should say Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless they would be capitalized for some reason other than being in an article title. Nor should it say "unless they would always be capitalized: there may be a particular occasion for capitalization that would apply in the context in question but not in all contexts. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
dot the i is an example. Capitalizing the "i" was proposed twice, and there has been "no consensus". Also, Star Trek into Darkness became Star Trek Into Darkness because consensus wanted to capitalize "into", despite the guideline's rules discouraging it. Shall we change rules to reflect the situations? If not, shall we implement WP:IAR to disregard the rules? If not, what are other related rules? If none, what else can we do if we cannot re-propose? -- George Ho ( talk) 23:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Someone's opened an RfC on using lower case for animal breeds except where they contain proper names, and this is followed by an alternative proposal based on breed standards. Both proposals would be a naming convention as well as style rule, so regulars here are liable to be interested in commenting. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
There's a slowly rumbling renaming war going on around several articles on Spanish-language television shows produced in the United States. Spanish-language (from Spain and Mexico) shows seem to generally, though not always, only capitalise the first word; US shows (in English) capitalise all major words (as per the conventions listed here) - but the intersection is causing some confusion. Has anyone any basic solutions? Grutness... wha? 13:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Capitalization in foreign-language titles varies, even over time within the same language; generally, retain the style of the original.This seems clear. Peter coxhead ( talk) 06:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Proposed solution: I'm agreed with Grutness that this isn't "borrowed from another language", and greed with Peter that the section he quoted is applicable. In answer to Grutness's question later, the resolution of the conflict between different sources capitalizing differently is a) do what the actual original show/publication does, and when that's indetermintae (e.g. because its' ALL-CAPPED or all-lowercase for stylistic effect), then do what the majority of the English-language sources do, because this is the English-language Wikipedia. I.e. prefer the English not Spanish edition of TV guide, etc. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)