Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Shortcut

Capitalization discussions ongoing (keep at top of talk page)

[edit]

Add new items at top of list; move to Concluded when decided, and summarize the conclusion. Comment at them if interested. Please keep this section at the top of the page.

Current

[edit]

(newest on top) Move requests:

Other discussions:

Concluded

[edit]
For the archive of related discussions closed 2021–24, see WT:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Concluded RM archive.
Extended content

Besieged

[edit]

I found a few hundred articles starting with "The Siege of X", and have been fixing them to "The siege of X" after checking each one to make sure it's not consistently capitalized in sources. A bunch of these I had fixed before, and a couple of editors recently went on a re-capitalizing spree, so I used revert and undo where I could. Another bunch were new articles, created in the last few months. I presume a lot of editors just like to copy the sentence-case title into the lead, capping even when it's not in sentence-initial position (and in a few cases, the edit summary essentially verified that). Perhaps some of them think these are proper names, in spite of typically lowercase uses in sources. I've still got about a hundred to fix – who knew there so many sieges? And I wonder if this over-capitalizing pattern is unique to sieges, or whether there are other groups of non-proper-name titles with similar issues. Dicklyon (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best to open an RM for those pages. If the result is "lower case"? then you change the intros. GoodDay (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why open an RM to get consensus to change the lead? Primergrey (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Best to change the page title, first. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page titles are already properly in sentence case, e.g. Siege of Kampili. Dicklyon (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult as one would need to add "The" to the article titles, to lowercase "Siege" in the article titles. Lower casing intros of military pages? tricky, but I'll support it. GoodDay (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, no "The" in titles, but when the lead starts with "The X" we need to look at whether X needs to be capitalized or not; not military specific, just that "Siege of ..." is one I see a lot. Dicklyon (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed a few dozen more of these. The idea that these are proper names came up explicitly in at least one, but mostly they're just not paying attention to what to do with an article title in sentence context (including some contexts I hadn't searched for before). Dicklyon (talk) 06:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed about 100 more of these. Lots of new articles, and lots of knee-jerk capitalization, including at least one edit summary saying "match title", which makes no sense in non-sentence-initial position. Dicklyon (talk) 06:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed about 100 more, both new articles and unnecessary re-capitalizations by editors who don't know better. Too many to notify. Dicklyon (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's pages like Downtown Los Angeles linked mid-sentence. —Bagumba (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are tons of article titles where the first word should be lowercased in sentences, and is not. Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just found a bunch more Siege patterns to fix, illustrated by these n-grams and these. Dicklyon (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Degrees

[edit]

I come across "she gained a Bachelor of Laws" or "which was classed as a Master of Science" on occasions. Both of which seem wrong to me, but I am not able to find anything in the MoS. Perhaps someone could point me in the right direction? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The MoS doesn't cover every possible issue. My usual trick is to go to Bachelor of Laws, Master of Science or whatever and see how a phrase is capitalized in Wikipedia's voice in the relevant article. I think it's debatable, but the consensus in the past has been that a named degree or certificate is a proper noun, unlike a field of study or an academic major. SchreiberBike | ⌨  14:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect Master of science is tagged a miscapitalization; Bachelor of laws is not, but probably should be. Dicklyon (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism

[edit]

The advice on antisemitism seems to be inconsistent with this Wikipedia consensus from 2006: Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 23#Requested move Even (or especially) when antisemitism is in proximity to similar terms like anti-Chinese, antisemitism should still be preferred over anti-Semitism because the juxtaposition would imply an equivalence between Semitism and the other anti class. Should the antisemitism advice be changed to align with the Antisemitism page consensus? AndyBloch (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The clause stating that the lower-casing of Semitic may appear pointed and insulting is pretty weird and like nothing I've ever heard before. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As its enforcer, I have no real idea where it came from either. Remsense ‥ 论 04:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 2020 thread where this verbiage was most recently established. Therein, User:SMcCandlish studiously notes the relevant basis in various past RfCs, which I've attempted to locate. I think much of the discussion is on Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 33? It all reads as somewhat prehistoric and of little instructive value though, so I'm unsure what I'm missing if anything. Remsense ‥ 论 05:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's nonsense. Just take that bit out. --DanielRigal (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Antisemitism should not be hyphenated except in quotations where the source hyphenated it. "Semitism" is not a thing in the way that Chinese is. Antisemitism is not targeted at Semitic people or something called "semitism". It is targeted at Jewish people including others perceived to be Jewish. Neither Jews, nor other Semitic people, are engaged in anything called "semitism" for the antisemites to be anti about. Looking at Wiktionary here it seems that some people have recently found some (very niche) legitimate uses for the word "semitism" but it seems that it means different things in different contexts and none of them have any connection to the much older word "antisemitism". --DanielRigal (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone that's replied so far would align with this—given the state of that talk page something tells me there's an opposing view I don't intuit, even if the conversations there didn't really shine any light on it. Remsense ‥ 论 06:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Lewisguile (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have long advocated this usage. In terms such as "anti-fascism" or "anti-feminism", it is clear that a particular phenomenon or ideology Is being opposed. But there is no such thing as "Semitism" except in the minds of the Jew-haters who invented the term. The use of the hyphenated and capitalised form lends credence to this misconception, and should be avoided. The hyphenated and uncapitalised form is overwhelmingly preferred by both academics and activists, and is increasingly becoming the form used by the media. I would like to see this usage globally in Wikipedia, except in direct quotations. RolandR (talk) 08:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the long-term 'no consensus' text. IMO, such stylistic ruling should have broader editorial input and be based on usage (globally) rather than what are (IMO) fairly semantic arguments about the origins and literal meaning of the elements in the term. Almost any adult Westerner knows that antisemitism is prejudice against Jews, with or without the hyphen, (not opposition to 'Semitism' which doesn't exist as a term). This is not unique, being anti-American is not the opposite of being 'American' and the meaning doesn't change with or without the hyphen. Words are understood mainly by usage, not dissecting their origins, which in this case may well have originally been a faux-academic euphemism/misnomer, but so what?Pincrete (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, the consensus is for "antisemitism", without the hyphen, everywhere else I've looked. The Antisemitism article itself is titled without the hyphen, and there have been several discussions about the hyphen over the last two decades, with the original RM from Anti-Semitism to Antisemitism in 2006 (which I linked above). Every article title on the subject uses "Antisemitism" instead of "Anti-Semitism", except when the title is the title of something outside of Wiki, regardless of the country of focus. Examples: Antisemitism in the United Kingdom, Antisemitism in Australia, Antisemitism in Canada, Antisemitism in New Zealand. Given that there's been voluminous and repetitive discussions on other talk pages, all of which now prefer the unhyphenated version, I don't see a good reason why we should rehash the discussion here, unless there's a good reason why the MOS should have a different preference or no preference than the rest of English Wikipedia. AndyBloch (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that this was seemingly well discussed already, I agree the MOS should be updated to reflect our actual established usage. Gawaon (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article about an artist who uses a uppercase stage name

[edit]

I'm currently working on this article: draft:URIEL BRG, and the artist mentioned in an interview (https://canvasrebel.com/meet-uriel-brg/) that his stage name is written and stylized in all caps. Before the article gets approved, should the article title reflect this stylization with a standard-case redirect, or should we use standard capitalization for the title and redirect from the all-caps version? Apparently this case is very similar to Charli XCX's; well, I'm looking for guidance on the best formatting choice. Coinhote (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably use URIEL BRG and make Uriel Brg and URIEL as redirects to it. Generally follow the name most commonly used by the sources you're referencing, and make the next common names down the list redirects. I'm not sure the subject of your article is sufficiently notable, though. 1101 (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your assistance! I know he is not notable but has some coverage and just signed to UMG this year, so I started working on his biography because I've been a fan just as I contributed to Billie Eilish's article when she debuted in 2016. Coinhote (talk) Coinhote (talk) 06:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No! We don't use marketing/stylistic all-caps, see MOS:ALLCAPS: "Reduce names of companies or other trademarks from all caps to sentence case, unless they are acronyms or initialisms, even if the company normally writes them in all caps." So unless the name of the artist is an acronym (which doesn't seem likely?), he's going to be written as Uriel Brg in the article, and that's how the article is going to be called too – assuming he becomes sufficiently notable to get one. Having the all-caps version as a redirect is fine, of course, but not more than that. Gawaon (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks — I didn't know. But Nvidia? Really? The MOS is strange. This is like using en-dashes to off­set clauses. 1101 (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a common practice. For example, the only independent reference in the draft article (though it's a dead link) seems to use the normal-case spelling Uriel Brg too. Gawaon (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to this... yep, many people are surprised to see the name of their favorite all-caps musician written lowercase on Wikipedia, but this is also often how such names are handled in reliable published sources such as Rolling Stone, the BBC, the Guardian, NY Times, etc. Popcornfud (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Talib1101: I wonder what you mean about dashes. In normal English punctuation, a dash indicating a break in a sentence is usually rendered as either a spaced en dash or an unspaced em dash. Not much to do with clauses there, and no need for adding that hyphen like you did in en-dash. Dicklyon (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Usually we don’t use all caps. However, as is noted at the start of all our MOS guidelines: occasional exceptions exist.
The question is whether this is an exception or not? To answer that, look at how reliable sources (that are independent of the subject) present this artist’s name. If lots and lots of reliable sources (overwhelmingly) present it in all caps (or with some other idiosyncratic stylization) then we can probably say that we are dealing with one of those very rare exceptions. (Especially note if the sources themselves make an exception to their own internal style guides by presenting it in all caps… that would a clear indication that we should probably follow suit).
The one thing we definitely don’t care about is how the subject himself/herself styles their name. Blueboar (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Long dashes can be used to offset clauses — as can parentheses and commas — and I think it looks much better with hair-width spacing. 1101 (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Xkcd#Requested move 29 March 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Xkcd#Requested move 29 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this talk page. FaviFake (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Overturning NCCAPS

[edit]

Pls see subject discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation for awards

[edit]

Some advice as to whether the 'Award' in the name of the award itself should be capitalised? I'm going to defer to the sources on this for now. I was editing The Kyiv Independent, by the way. SelfDestructible (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a case by case basis. Sometimes it's actually part of the name, and should be capitalized, other times it's not. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. SelfDestructible (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miscapitalizations

[edit]

We have a long-running dispute (@Hey man im josh: and me) about which redirects should be tagged as "R from miscapitalization". This tag puts redirects into Category:Redirects from miscapitalisations and onto the maintenance report Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations. I pay attention to that report, and work on getting things off it by fixing capitalization, or sometimes by removing the tags from ones that I don't think need to be fixed. I mostly tag things that I think are over-capitalized, like NFL Draft, which he reverts. He mostly tags things that he thinks are under-capitalizalized, like Allmusic, which I reverted (since it's still commonly lowercase in sources) and 1984 Stanley Cup finals (which really should be lowercase per MOS:CAPS). Mostly I don't fight what I see as mistakes, as there's still a ton of work to do with the ones that are properly tagged, but he recently added a ton, overflowing the report's 1000-item limit with things that in many cases shouldn't even be there. And as far as I can tell, he's not doing the work to clear things from the report by fixing what he thinks are errors. So the report becomes less useful over time with this kind of junk. What I'd really like is to see others helping with case fixing, in both directions. But I'll settle for some comments and advice. Dicklyon (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a way to tag miscapitalizations which are counter to WP's standards. WP:GNOMEs could then help fix these. There was consensus to change NFL Draft sitewide to NFL draft. However, there was a dispute over using {{R from miscapitalisation}}. It's unclear how it can be ok to tag undercapitalizations but not overcaptializations. If not that tag, can another one be started?—Bagumba (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken to using "R from over-capitalization" as more specific than "R from miscapitalization", but it redirects to the same place for now. I wouldn't mind having more specific tagging, but it might still be hard to agree on what exactly what they should be, or should mean. Dicklyon (talk) 05:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With this type of logic why have you not dealt with all of the entries in the page before adding more? The number of entries on the page isn't a reason not to tag redirects as such, and it's inaccurate to say I've focused on cases where they're under capitalized. This also feels somewhat like relitigating the previous discussion that, I believe, was at a redirect related page for when the tags were appropriate.
The REAL flaw in this is putting too much weight on the report itself, and going back 15 years and editing POTD and DYK nominations (and user comments) to remove links. There's simply too much weight and focus being put on a singular report, as opposed to the actual meaning behind what the report was intended to be for. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for "not doing the work", I regularly do a TON of cleanup, so it's absolutely insulting to act as though I do not. One example would be regularly monitoring requested move nominations, which has led to WP:CFDS being one of my most edited pages. Many of which are because of move discussions you've started but not cleaned for afterwards. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, I acknowledge and thank you for doing a bunch of cleanup work. But you've also done a bunch of make-work, it appears, by creating a ton of new "miscapitalized" redirects not associated with any evidence of consensus or need. Be aware that the existence of these is what invites visual editors to link through them, which is the source of a huge number of the linked miscapitalizations in the report. Dicklyon (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you couldn't get consensus to recognize it as not a proper name, meaning we retain the status quo and treat it as such. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually had the report down to about 300 items last September, with a ton of hard manual work, but since then there have been a lot more consensus RM decisions, and this report is an effective way to track cleanup of those. My ability to do the big cleanups is severely hampered by not having AWB access, so I did what I could manually, averaging probably well over 100 edits per day, but put more work into the moves than into the cleanup for a while. And it was below 800 entries last month, before it bloated up with your additions such as seen here, and now it's about 1100, many of which have no reason other than your opinion to be marked as miscapitalizations. Dicklyon (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The size of the list is entirely irrelevant, and the fact you can't use automated tools is your own fault, as is the appeal to be allowed to use them again failing. As for no reason to be there, I'm sorry you disagree with what's a proper name. Feel free to hold RMs to downcase them. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: For 1984 Stanley Cup finals1984 Stanley Cup finals, what was your rationale to apply R from miscapitalisation? My impression from an earlier discussion was that you felt {{R from other capitalisation}} should generally be used, unless it was a universally-followed format e.g. United States, not united States. Sources like The New York Times use "Stanley Cup finals"[1]. Thanks in advance. —Bagumba (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Bagumba. The difference in my approach is that from a capitalization to a lowercase should be treated differently than vice versa. In this case, we're pointing to a proper name, making the failure to capitalize properly a miscapitalization. In the other cases, it's a situation where it's viewed as a proper name by some or in some contexts, but does not match Wikipedia's styling. That would make the capitalization of NFL Draft (as a go to relevant example we're both familiar with) a good example of this, where each NFL team capitalizes it but it was decided that it doesn't fit into Wikipedia's styling. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: Sure, but why apply greater weight to those who decide to treat it as a proper name, marking the lower case redirects as a "miscapitalisation", while the upper case redirects have a more "lenient" sounding "other capitalisation"? —Bagumba (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: From my perspective, when you fail to capitalize a proper name, it's an error, when you capitalize something differently when its capitalization can go both ways, it's an alternative capitalization. Unless consensus has been gained to treat something as not a proper name (downcasing), we should be treating many lowercased redirects to capitalized titles as such. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a simple heuristic rule that people might be OK with: If an editor marks a redirect as a miscapitalization, and another editor undoes that (marks it as "R from other capitalization"), then that should be allowed to stand as other, unless there is a demonstrated consensus for the correct case on Wikipedia (an RM or other discussion with a clear outcome, not "no consensus"). Simple? Dicklyon (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh:, however, says in this revert that one needs to find consensus that it's not a proper name to remove what is essentially his assertion that it is. I think RM discussions are where such things are likely to be hashed out, and this one clearly did not find a consensus that it needs to be capitalized on Wikipedia. We did find a consensus that NFL draft should not use capitalized Draft, yet he removes the miscapitalized tag from those. I don't see how he can logically argue that he should get his way on both of these. Or on either one, really. Dicklyon (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I missed this discussion being started. You attempted to downcase the pages, which there was not consensus for. As such, there's no reason not to treat them as proper names considering they were kept at the capitalized titles. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was originally a close to downcase Region. Then that was re-opened and closed as no consensus. Certainly no consensus to capitalize them, especially with the acknowledgement that they often refer to the region, not the adminstrative unit. But in any case, you can't have it both ways, unilaterally deciding what needs to be capitalized while ignoring consensus decisions for what should be lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you failed to get consensus to change away from a proper name, changed a ton of links, and now you don't want to clean up your own mess? Figures. You originally added the upper case version to the list, changed all the links, and now you should also be responsible for changing them back if you don't like the result of your failed RM. A lower case to a proper name IS a miscapitalization. Don't like it? Ignore the report. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning anything to do with the Stanley Cup Finals? Just open an RM to cover all those pages. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's really that simple. Why wouldn't we treat lowercase titles to proper names as miscapitalizations? Dicklyon has been doing the opposite for years. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You keep ignoring consensus. There was no consensus to cap Region in the New Zealand regions (closer wrote: "No consensus. In deference to the earlier closure, at that time there were no editors in opposition [to lowercase region]. Now, we see below strong, P&G-based arguments in both camps; however, there is in this case no agreement whether to keep current titles or to move them.". There was a consensus to lowercase draft in the sports contexts. Yet you treat lowercase regions as an error and uppercase Draft as OK. You can't have it both ways. Dicklyon (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You keep ignoring consensus – That's a lofty claim which I don't believe is appropriate. Feel free to relitigate the close, but when something is considered a proper name then the lowercase version to it would be considered a miscapitalization.
There was a consensus to lowercase draft in the sports contexts. – Huh? No there wasn't, it's a case by case basis because these events need to be evaluated separately. There was never a consensus that "all titles which contain draft should be downcased and are not proper names in any context ever. It feels as though you're being intentionally obtuse in your obsession with drafts. As previously discussed, way too many times, to the point it feels like you're being intentionally disruptive, titles which are downcased on wiki due to (silly) ngram results are not necessarily not treated as proper names elsewhere, it doesn't mean the title isn't a proper name at all. It just means that, within Wikipedia style, it is downcased. One example of this is the NFL having a style guide which all NFL teams use that treat "NFL Draft" as a proper name. Is someone wrong for copying what the NFL consistently does? Absolutely not, they treat the event name as a proper name, as countless others do for various events. As such, it's not a miscapitalization when the event's name is treated as a proper name, meaning labeling it as an error in capitalization is inappropriate. That is very clearly different than a case of a title of an event or area that is written in lower case but redirects to a name which is capitalized. The event or area has not been downcased, and should be treated as a proper name.
To keep it simple... of course lowercase redirects to uppercase names are more likely to be considered a miscapitalization. But I'm not sure we have to relitigate this in a new venue every few months. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the New Zealand regions, the RM discussion we're talking about is at Talk:Auckland Region#Requested move 20 January 2025. On 28 Jan, the first closer wrote "The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus that "region" is not consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of sources per MOS:CAPS; a check at ngrams confirms this: "region" is always either ahead or at worst tied; none of these are mainly capitalised, let alone with a substantial minority." Later, after it was re-opened for a while, the second closer wrote, "No consensus. In deference to the earlier closure, at that time there were no editors in opposition. Now, we see below strong, P&G-based arguments in both camps; however, there is in this case no agreement whether to keep current titles or to move them." There's certainly no indication that I can find of any consensus that it's a proper name, and therefore the lowercase alternative is an "other capitalization", not a "miscapitalization", especially in contexts that are schools, rivers, etc. in the region, not about the adminstrative entity itself. Dicklyon (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions at Compass points

[edit]

I made two simple changes here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style%2FCapital_letters&diff=1284934835&oldid=1284100461 Both changes were reverted by @Deor, then one was restored by @Deor, then the other change was reverted by @Cinderella157 with the explanation "unnecessary."

The changes were (1) I added a serial comma. Whatever you think of serial commas, the Wikipedia standard at MOS:SERIAL is, "Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent." Scan through the rest of article. Most other serial lists use serial commas. If you're going to revert this instance, you have a lot more to change as well. Neither serial commas nor omission of serial commas is necessary, but it is necessary to be consistent within an article. (2) I changed the serial list's coordinating conjunction from "or" to "and." This is a list of examples of reliable sources, ALL of which apply. Thus, "and" is correct. For "or" to be correct, then the three items must be examples only as alternatives to one another. This is not the case. All three truly are examples of sources. It is not true that only a, b, OR c is an example; they are all examples. This is a clear-cut case for "and"; "or" does not make logical sense here. Holy (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I restored the or was to preserve the parallelism of "as with North Korea, Southern California, or Western Europe" with "as with eastern Spain or southwest Poland" in the following sentence. It seems to me that either both should be and or both shoukd be or. I agree with you that serial commas are the predominant usage on the page; that's why, after checking, I restored it with the edit summary "on second thought ..." I have no idea why Cinderella157 reverted me. Deor (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I see a lot of inconsistent use of the comma before and. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted you to put the comma back, as I see the Oxford comma being pretty consistently used on that guideline page. I couldn't find another place where it was not used, so if you're seeing some, let me know and I'll add the comma. Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is more a lot of places it shouldn't be used. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Examples? Dicklyon (talk) 04:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See the section Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Anglo- and similar prefixes for some. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I removed two commas that seemed unnecessary, and added one Oxford comma for consistency. Are you just saying you don't like Oxford commas? I know that's a common preference, but this page seems to use them throughout. Dicklyon (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the edit because it was adding a comma where it did not appear necessary since it had not been there before and the edit summaries indicated consistency was without the comma, though the second thought did not of itself suggest that consistency lay the other way. An error on my part induced by the brevity of the summaries. I can live with serial commas per the guidance. However, there appears to be a lot of spurious , and floating around that don't meet the three or more list requirement (see here). Cinderella157 (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please do fix extra spurious commas, but sometimes those commas before "and" in non-list context serve a different role, as those between independent clauses (see Rule 1 here). Dicklyon (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know any rules against using Oxford commas, so how you can say they are over-used? Gawaon (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of L-/D- prefixes for organic chemistry

[edit]

I recently discovered that there is no guidance on how to handle the capitalization of L-/D- prefixes for organic chemistry. After posting on the talk page of a niche chemistry article, @Paradoctor advised me to bring the discussion here instead.

According to the IUPAC guidelines for carbohydrate nomenclature "The configurational symbols D and L should appear in print in small-capital roman letters" (Nomenclature of Carbohydrates p. 1929). However, how this is implemented seems to differ quite a bit from article to article with both small capital letters and small caps being used (variations used include <small>...</small>, {{sm}}, {{smallcaps all}} and {{sc}} (with the latter two apparently being deprecated)).

I would appreciate if a consensus could be reached about how to implement the L-/D- prefix styling. I would also suggest adding information about the preferred way to do it to WP:CHEMPREFIX when a consensus is reached. Veryspecific (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I admit I got confused for a while. It hadn't registered with me that small caps applies to lowercase letters only. Uppercase letters are not changed by small caps styling. Now that I got that straight, the solution is clear:
{{small caps|d}}-fucol yields d-fucol
<small>...</small> should not be used, because it gets rendered differently, as LlLL and DdDD demonstrate. The first and last letters are the unstyled uppercase variants, the second is small caps, the third is the <small>...</small> variant. Perhaps more importantly, the tag does not communicate the rendering intent of displaying small caps. Paradoctor (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The template:smallcaps2 (alias template:sc2) is the right way to style it IMO. D-fucol ({{sc2|D}}-fucol) can be copied and pasted to plain text and still retain the capital D. Indefatigable (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{sc2}}: this template should only be used for acronyms or other material which is supposed to be capitalized regardless of style Paradoctor (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if you're supporting or opposing the use of sc2, but the doc you quoted supports it - the D and L are supposed to be capitalized, and in small caps when that styling is available. Indefatigable (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
D and L are supposed to be capitalized Veryspecific? Paradoctor (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Indefatigable. The prefixes are supposed to be capitalized, as lowercase l-/d- prefixes are outdated versions of (+)-/(-)- nomenclature (optical rotation) that should not be confused with L-/D- prefixes (relative configuration). Veryspecific (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, {{sc2}} it is. Paradoctor (talk) 05:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One issue, though: {{sc2}} uses <templatestyles />, which does not work when used in WP:DISPLAYTITLE. Par for the course.
As a workaround, use
{{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="font:smaller small-caps">PREFIX</span>RESTOFTITLE}}
Production example at special:permalink/1285852146.
What a mess. Paradoctor (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have undone the change of the the CHEM guideline. This discussion has lasted 2ish days, was claimed as consensus by the heavily involved proposer, had minimal participation, was not notified to the wikiprojects that are actually affected, affected hundreds or thousands of articles, and has at least one technical concern that was already mentioned here. If you're going to change the workflow and standards of dozens of long-term skilled writers, you could at least have the courtesy to invite them to discuss it. DMacks (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geological names

[edit]

Given that geographical or place names are included in this MoS, I think there should be a section for geological names since geography and geology are related topics. There has been much debate over the capitalization of geological names over the years and I have not been able to find a suitable guideline for it. There is currently a requested move on Talk:Bakken formation over whether or not the title of this article should be Bakken formation or Bakken Formation. According to the International Commission on Stratigraphy on the naming of stratigraphical units: "Capitalization - The first letters of all words used in the names of formal stratigraphic units are capitalized (except for the trivial names of species and subspecies rank in the names of biostratigraphic units). Informal terms are not capitalized." (source: https://stratigraphy.org/guide/defs). In this case Bakken formation should be capitalized because it is a formal term per the Lexicon of Canadian Geologic Units. Volcanoguy 19:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence case or title case for multi-word WikiProject names?

[edit]

There seems to be an inconsistency in how the capitalization of multi-word WikiProject names are handled. Title case examples include: WP:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography and WP:WikiProject Ice Hockey. Sentence case examples include: WP:WikiProject Video games, WP:WikiProject Classical music, and WP:WikiProject College football. Has there ever been a consensus or guideline about this? Left guide (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had brought up this issue at this RM: WT:WikiProject Women's Health#Requested move 11 April 2025. Still open. My impression is that the majority are named such that the words after "WikiProject" match the title of a main article, i.e. sentence case. When that's not the case, more work is needed to avoid linking over-capitalized redirects, and things like that. Dicklyon (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surely actual sentence case would be "WP:WikiProject crime and criminal biography", "WP:WikiProject ice hockey", "WP:WikiProject video games", etc. I don't know what style name to call capitalizing the first and second words and then not capitalizing the rest. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the word "WikiProject" is considered a de facto prefix since it exists on every WikiProject title, at least that's how I'm able to make sense of it. Left guide (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When we use sentence case, even when things start with stopper words like "The", we don't use it as an excuse to capitalize only the second word of the title. The namespace prefix is the "WP:", not what comes after it. And articles such as [2] that talk about these projects include "WikiProject" as part of the project title, not just a piece of syntax used internally to refer to the project. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the common capitalization pattern is not very logical. But it is the dominant convention, so I'm not in favor of changing it. I just want to fix the few that are more capitalized that usual, since they tend to cause links to show up on Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations in template space. Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My perspective is that, if anything, WikiProject should be at the end of these names. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of university departments of mathematics (lowercase meaning that they are departments that house mathematicians and teach mathematics) whose proper name is Department of Mathematics, others whose proper name is Mathematics Department, and others that have other names entirely. If you consider starting a new WikiProject, you could consider naming it WP:Onomastics WikiProject, just to introduce some of that same name diversity into our system. But the existing WikiProjects have names (proper noun phrases) that happen to have WikiProject in front, and in many cases have the other words capitalized in their name. You wouldn't suggest changing the capitalization of "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" to "United kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" merely because "kingdom" is also a common English word and is used with its usual meaning in that phrase, would you? This suggestion strikes me as in the same vein. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit too radical and disruptive, I expect. But moving a few projects to the most common style should be a lot easier to swallow. It's not about MOS compliance per se, since these are not in article space, but making this change will make it easier to maintain links to over-capitalized redirects, which is what brought this up. Dicklyon (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The most common style" being first and second words capitalized, rest lowercase?? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much so. I.e. the most common style is "WikiProject" followed by a main article title as if it's sentence-initial, like WP:WikiProject College football. Dicklyon (talk) 05:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what those WikiProjects want to name themselves then ok, but I think it's a stupid style to impose on others that want proper capitalization for their proper noun phrase names. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about proper nouns, but about how to most easily keep the project names, category names, project templates on talk pages working corrrectly together when the main topic is not a proper noun phrase. Dicklyon (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares whether the name of the WikiProject, a proper noun phrase, was constructed using English words that happen to be non-proper noun phrases or with made-up neologisms? It is still the name of the WikiProject, a proper noun phrase, exactly as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a proper noun phrase that happens to have been constructed using non-proper nouns and adjectives united, kingdom, of, great, and, northern. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares whether you think of WikiProject names as proper noun phrases? Most of them are not treated that way. Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I care, since whether something is a proper noun is entirely relevant to whether it's capitalized. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What? Now there's an attempt to lowercase all WikiProject titles, too? GoodDay (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Requires renaming thousands of pages, breaking categories, modules, links and templates all over the place, for no benefit whatsoever. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good Day is confused when he says "there's an attempt to lowercase all WikiProject titles". I don't have a complete list, but it looks like there about 800 or so WikiProjects with multiword "main article" names; the majority of those are proper names (e.g. WP:WikiProject James Bond), and are not at issue here at all. Of the 300 or so that are not proper names, about 230 already have the name in the Wikiproject matching the capitalization of the main article. Only about 70 are the subject of this discussion; e.g. WP:WikiProject Ice Hockey with main article Ice hockey. So, dozens, not thousands. Getting these fixed without breaking anything should be straightforward, but will take some time. Dicklyon (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am here as lead coordinator of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history (sentence case). And I am telling you that changing it is not simple or straightforward at all. We have thousands of pages, extensive archives, templates, Lua modules and bots. And there is no way that you could make such a complex change without breaking anything. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7:, I don't doubt that the push for lower-casing will eventually succeed, in this area. It'll never stop, until it does. GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be up to the members of each WikiProject what they want to call themselves and how they want to style it. For example, WikiProject:Civil Rights Movement is uppercased due to the fact that the 1954-1968 Civil Rights Movement is a proper name, which is apparant to involved editors. It's inactive as far as I know, but still there and still properly named. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconding this, here we go again with the lowercase crusading. Leave it up to individual Wikiprojects to decide their names, this doesn't have anything to do with article-space content and therefore (IMO) the MoS only loosely applies. The Kip (contribs) 04:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The MoS is strictly limited to articles. Changing "articles" to "pages" (or any change broadening MOS's scope of applicability) would require a widely advertised RfC. (WP:MOS) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, further backs up my opinion. The Kip (contribs) 04:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, it's not an MOS issue. It interacts a bit with MOS-related maintenance through reports of linked miscapitalizations, as I said at the start. And those can be dealt with in other ways, so I'll work on those other ways if there's no appetite for more consistent project naming. Dicklyon (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As one of the people in WikiProject Crime: who cares? It's a WikiProject. WikiProjects are only of relevance to a small set of highly interested editors so unless those editors care why should we. Also, as someone who has done them, WP moves are a nightmare every time. You have to move sometimes thousands of pages. We wanted to move it back to WikiProject Crime (the current, lengthy name is a result of a very long 2000s era argument that was not properly resolved until 2023) but we decided it was not worth the hassle. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. Any gain made in increased consistency will be completely outweighed by the enormous amount of work to change all of the projects where this applies, and then retrain everyone used to the current names to use the new ones. Doing this for something that isn't even reader-facing is a total waste of effort that could be spent on something more useful, like watching paint dry. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let WikiProjects name themselves! Good grief. I know this thread has gone stale, but I thought I'd share another example: WP:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies last year changed its name to add the ⟨+⟩ even though consensus has not been to add this to LGBTQ people and all other related articles. Note that many of the same editors contribute to discussions about the WikiProject name and related article titles. The Project name reflects the perspective and preferences of its participants, even while acknowledging that usage and other factors recommend a different form in article titles. Imposing conformity from the outside is a waste of time and energy that does not improve the encyclopedia. PS: I realize this example is not CAPS related but principle is the same. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this should have been closed. It turns out there's a template parameter that provides an easy fix to avoid linking over-capitalized redirects in teh project template. E.g. in Template:WikiProject Ice Hockey, using |MAIN_ARTICLE = ice hockey prevents linking through the over-capitalized redirect Ice Hockey, and shows up as "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia." The MAIN_ARTICLE parameter just needs to be implemented on more projects. Dicklyon (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good that there is a technical fix! --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 11:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of "cabinet" in government articles

[edit]

I noticed some inconsistencies in article titles (First cabinet of Donald Trump vs. First Cabinet of Thabo Mbeki) and then within articles themselves (the Cabinet of Barack Obama article contains both "Obama Cabinet" and "Obama cabinet"). After typing "First cabinet of" into the search bar and seeing cabinet capitalized in every title, I mistakenly believed that there was already consensus to capitalize to Cabinet in this context and performed two bad and poorly explained page moves (A and B). Thank you Dicklyon for getting those reversed. There isn't actually a consensus as far as I can tell, and a full 50 articles of the "Nth cabinet of X" form use the lowercase version. I've now looked in various dictionaries and manuals of styles and found inconsistent advice:

  • Merriam-Webster: "often capitalized"
  • Dictionary.com: "Often Cabinet"
  • Cambridge English Dictionary: this one is hard for me to decipher
  • New Oxford American Dictionary Third Edition: "also Cabinet" in Commonwealth countries. Does not mention capitalization in the US but does provide the example "[as modifier] a cabinet meeting"
  • Chicago Manual of Style 18th Edition: "Certain generic terms associated with governmental bodies are lowercased ... cabinet" (Jackson's Kitchen Cabinet is the only mentioned exception)
  • New Zealand government: "Use capitals for such things as: ... Cabinet, when referring to the government‘s Cabinet Office"
  • Australian Government Style Manual: "Always use an initial capital for ‘the Cabinet’ to show the difference from its generic reference"
  • NARA Style Guide (US): "Capitalize the names of Cabinet-level bodies and shortened forms"
  • Congressional Budget Office (US): "Uppercase when referring to the President’s Cabinet ... Lowercase when referring to other cabinets"
  • GPO Style Manual (US): "Cabinet, American or foreign, if part of name or standing alone"

Because this affects more than just article titles, and because I'm confused as to what capitalization is correct, I'm asking here before requesting any page moves. How should (or how does) Wikipedia handle the capitalization of cabinet? My sense is that it is capitalized when it is part of a formal name, such as "Cabinet of Countryname", and not capitalized in the generic sense of "a cabinet is a group of people". But what about cases like "Leadername's cabinet", "their cabinet", "the Leadername cabinet", "the first cabinet of Leader Name", and the adjectival "a cabinet meeting" in the context of a specific leader's cabinet? PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 00:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some n-gram stats: [3] , [4], [5], [6] suggest that the Cabinet of Ministers (of certain countires such as the USSR) is about the only place where it's pretty consistently capped. Dicklyon (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    N-grams were a good idea, and it's hard to argue against those graphs. Except for the "Cabinet of Countryname" type [7] [8], [9], [10], [11], at least some of which appear to be proper names, it would seem Cabinet of Ministers is the only place with consistent capitalization. Here's the "[Recent US President] cabinet" n-gram [12] and the "[Recent US President]'s cabinet" [13] n-gram. Lowercase is more common in both cases. "[C/c]abinet meeting" has been more commonly lowercase since 1990 [14]. "[C/c]abinet nominee" made the switch to lowercase in the late 90s [15]. I'll go notify WikiProject Politics of this discussion since it primarily affects articles within their scope. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 06:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’d make a distinction between the institution (the Cabinet or Government), capitalized, and its temporary formations or memberships (the Merz cabinet and Bayrou government, which are a cabinet or government), lowercase. Keriluamox (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why no VAR?

[edit]

The advice in the lead that only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia goes against the grain of the advice in STYLEVAR, ENGVAR, DATEVAR and CITEVAR, which is that multiple styles are fine so long as there is is consistency within articles (and, where CONSUB applies, between subarticles). I am not concerned with rules for articles titles so much as for the forced application of article title case throughout the encyclopaedia. Is it necessary to everywhere write Iberian Peninsula instead of Iberian peninsula or Tang dynasty instead of Tang Dynasty? Srnec (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that capitalization in Wikipedia is intended to have a defined meaning. If we avoid unnecessary capitalization, then when caps are used, it should be because that's necessary, and the reader should not have to wonder if this is just a page with a style of doing unnecessary capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some people seem to see all our VARs as a positive thing. I see it as evidence we couldn't reach a compromise. We did reach agreement on capitalization and though it's never been without controversy, it works fine. I don't want to see more variation. I'd rather see more compromise. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did some work earlier today on uppercasing Iberian Peninsula, and have about 150 or so to go. Tang Dynasty is actually much more uppercased than not in the n-grams. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've wondered about this myself, and in at least one case we already do this and it works. I've long been a proponent of STYLEVAR and leaving well enough alone. It averts disputes while the present system in this area seems to foment them. I know the counterarguments especially as they relate to CITEVAR, and well expect when I defend it to receive pushback for making this place unmaintainable for regulars and confusing for new editors. I'll even concede a degree of accuracy to those criticisms but nonetheless maintain it is better than the alternative. The limited evidence thus far suggests it can work in this area as well, but I suspect now is not an opportune time to pursue that option. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:MILTERMS

[edit]

In recent RM discussions, some editors have asserted that usually in reference to wars and battles etc, creates a substantially different threshold for capitalisation that the general advice of the lead, which is often paraphrased as consistently capitalised. There is even the suggestion that this amounts to greater than 50% capitalisation. In one discussion, I have responded much as follows.

MOS:MILTERMS is part of MOS:CAPS. The opening paragraph of MOS:MILTERMS states: The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized. The general advice in the lead paragraph of MOS:CAPS is often paraphrased as requiring consistent capitalisation. A sub-paragraph of MILTERMS states: Accepted names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions ... and so forth are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in sources. Any particular statement should be read in the fuller context of the guidance and not taken in isolation. It would be a pettifogging argument to argue that the spirit and intent of this statement gives a substantially lower threshold for capitalisation than the opening paragraph of MILTERMS or the general advice in the lead of MOS:CAPS. The Merriam-Webster definition for usually is: according to the usual or ordinary course of things : most often : as a rule : customarily, ordinarily. This is not consistent more commonly capitalized than not. Even reading this sub-paragraph in isolation, usually is much more in line with consistently or a substantial majority than just a simple majority.

Questions that arise are:

  1. Whether usually in the fuller context does create a different threshold for capitalisation?
  2. Assuming it doesn't, do we need to make it clear that it doesn't?
  3. If we do need to make it clear, how should we do this? and,
  4. By what processes should we address these questions?

Comments please. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is fine as is, no need to change it. This has been correctly used in recent RM closings that are obviously uppercased as common names. Nothing broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per this post, you would state that: "Usually" is approximately 50.00001%, give or take a few zeroes. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Usually" means "most often", if that's simpler. Anything over 50% is most often. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One should read the definition provided as a whole, rather than cherry picking one particular part. In another discussion, I asked if you could produce a definition stating "Usually" is approximately 50.00001%, give or take a few zeroes. I am yet to be shown one. On the other hand, these [16][17][18] show how "usually" is most usually interpreted quantitatively. The interpretation you would apply appears to be an aberration - ie far from what is usual. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You link to your comment but not the longer conversation. Here is the rest, except for your last comment about the specific RM where we disagree about percentage. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would favor an RfC on this question. It's odd to see an unexplained clash between the general rule and the specific rule, and it's untenable to have the clash be open to interpretation. There has been recent edit warring over this guidance, so it would be good to call in more attention. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my half-hearted attempt to better align MILCAPS with MOS:CAPS back in 2019. See the edit summary there. Dicklyon (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers, I would suggest that the first question is whether: usually reasonably represents a significantly different threshold (per Randy et al) given the fuller definition (ie not cherrypicking one part that tends to support that view) and how it is viewed linguistically (see here); or, is that view an aberration? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The language could be moved back to before Dicklyon edited it in 2019. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC proposal

[edit]

The section in question presently reads:

The following is proposed wording for an RfC on this issue.

Should the spirit and intent of usually capitalized in sources at MOS:MILTERMS be taken as consistent with the general advice on capitalisation given in the lead of MOS:CAPS or is the spirit and intent to create a substantially different and lower threshold for capitalising the types of events named.

For discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Spirit and intent"? WP:CRYSTAL probably applies, unless there's a WP:MINDREADING? "Usually" means "usually", which is defined by almost every source as "most often". No RfC is actually needed, the idea of changing a dictionary word into something else shouldn't be what Wikipedia is about as far as I know. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What it means are things like: according to the usual or ordinary course of things : most often : as a rule : customarily, ordinarily yet you persist in choosing to consider only one part of such definitions rather than taking them on balance overall. In case you haven't noticed, there has been more than one suggestion that this be resolved by RfC. As to spirit and intent, WP:P&G and WP:5P make references to the spirit This subsection is clearly not to debate the question but to formulate the question to be proposed by the RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'Most often' is the only definition you've listed that is objective. If you want an RfC question it could be something like "Does 'most often' mean 'most often', as 'occurring more than another'". Randy Kryn (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone really think we don't want to follow our usual guidelines in the case of MIL terms? Why not just rephrase it to be more obviously consistent with MOSCAPS and be done with it? Dicklyon (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bronx

[edit]

Hi all. I'm seeking opinions on the mid-sentence capitalization the "The" in "the Bronx." Per MOS:THECAPS, "the Bahamas" is correct but so is "The Hague," due to The Hague being routinely spelled with a capital "T" by reliable sources. A quick review of several articles in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal sees lower case "T"s mid-sentence, as does the entirety of the Bronx article on Wikipedia. I've searched the MOS and talk pages extensively and have been unable to find a consensus for this particular case. Rift (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See this ngram. Clearly it is not an exception where we would cap the. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Solar System

[edit]

There's a rather glaring error. The solar system is not capitalized, as such this guideline should be changed. Check media sources, etc. Aromatize (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend searching through the archives and reading the previous discussions that are why the guideline is how it is, before expecting editors to rehash said discussions. Remsense ‥ 论 23:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can go along now, we'll discuss it. Aromatize (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, please do read before rehashing, because I promise no one else wants to either:
should help. Remsense ‥ 论 23:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else? It's fine to challenge the "argument" or tenuous statements which were made in 2015 or other years. Aromatize (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point you're not getting is there were already in-depth discussions with many arguments and editors on this point, and you're basically demanding to be spoonfed those same arguments, which is all that's going to happen here. That's a waste of others' time. At least skim, would you? Remsense ‥ 论 23:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like you to leave. Aromatize (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We all want things. I'd like you to at least articulate anything that hasn't already been dealt with before word-for-word. You can only do that if you see what's been argued before. I went and got the links for you, and the only reason you won't click them is because you insist on wasting our time. Remsense ‥ 论 23:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a rather glaring exception to the usual guidline of avoiding unnecessary capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Dicklyon, I am taking on huge projects. Some involve Wikipedia, most don't. This site could use serious help.Aromatize (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This site has about as much serious help as it can handle. Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my mind, the exception here cannot be seen as merely superfluous. To complement the arguments made in previous discussions, such as those citing use by particularly prominent authorities like the IAU:
  • Sole reference to NGrams is misleading here, given there's a distinction that we want to make, but other sources may not find as useful – between the common noun phrase solar system (any star system with planets) and the proper noun phrase Solar System (the particular solar system containing our Sun).
  • It's also at least clearly plausible that in this case, favoring consistency between terms of a class is better than favoring the narrowest plausible interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME. To me, it makes far less sense to use the forms Sun, Moon, etc. for the corresponding proper nouns, while solar system is used for both possible senses.
Remember, two of our five naming convention criteria are precision (my first point) and consistency (my second point). Really, it's an exception merely to a trend that correlates with following the guidance, but it's really not a meaningful exception to the actual text of the guideline as written. Remsense ‥ 论 05:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, all three – the Sun, the Moon, the Solar System – are vastly overcapitalized in Wikipedia compared to what the majority of reliable sources uses. Gawaon (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My points are that the consistency argument is important here, and the precision argument makes sense to me on an encyclopedia. Remsense ‥ 论 06:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gawaon, proper names are uppercased on Wikipedia. Do you not think that giant nuclear reactor in the sky that brings life to the planet, or the immense ball of rock that circles the Earth (notice 'Earth', uppercased) in a failed but constant attempt to fall into it, should have proper names? Asking for a friend. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not to play devil's advocate too aggressively, but the correlation between proper noun function and capitalization is clear but comparatively low: American Revolution but Abbasid revolution, many more instances from the humanities. The classic exceptions ubiquitous in English of spring, summer, autumn, winter I needn't even mention. Remsense ‥ 论 11:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those definable seasons are times determined by the placement of Earth on its yearly journey around a giant nuclear furnace, and have differed throughout time, among cultures, and by location on the planet. As for the revolutions, they were all uppercased before Dicklyon changed WP:MILTERMS to limit uppercasing to those revolutions which are usually (most often) uppercased in sources, which turn out to be the long-term successful ones. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we can look forward to lowercasing June ;).
Sure, that's one particularized rule change one can point to, but I think my sense we're replete with examples that cover the gamut is right: linguistic turn, Chola dynasty, circle of fifths, theory of forms, general relativity...
Really, as you alluded to, the operative "rule" seems instead to be that the Solar System is a concrete place name. That's a rather limited subset of "proper nouns" in their totality, and one where the value of being consistent is much clearer to me. Remsense ‥ 论 12:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for the other, here's kind-of what I recently explained to an uppercase-doubter at the Solar System talk page: Wikipedia's astronomical objects guideline covers Solar System because it is an astronomical object. That has been further proven since even the last requested move discussions took place. The article List of artificial objects leaving the Solar System covers five amazing space missions, each of which has mapped or is mapping its shape, boundary, and range. Wikipedia recognizes that the Solar System is a definable astronomical object, as are the planetary systems of other stars, which has a unique proper name pertaining to the Sun and its reach before entering interstellar space. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I also recognize that that the solar system is a definable astronomical object; just one that doesn't have a proper name, if we're to go by most sources. So no matter how you spin it, it's a glaring departure from our usual style (as are many capitalizations of Sun, Moon, Universe, and such). Dicklyon (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Well, I admit universe is apparently our house style. Sigh.) Remsense ‥ 论 17:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just re-read this and went "huh?"

just one that doesn't have a proper name, if we're to go by most sources

Is the logic here just, that outlets who don't capitalize solar system necessarily aren't using it as a proper noun? That logic would seem to be entirely backwards. The orthography has developed to loosely reflect how words otherwise function, not the other way around. Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious. Remsense ‥ 论 00:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Solar System is definable, as are other planetary systems not called Solar System (because there's only one of those). I wonder what its proper name might be? Hmmm, I'll look for my thinking cap. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewing the first two pages of a search of google scholar search (here) gives sixteen results using solar system (lowercase)[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]. As far as I can see, these are all referring to the solar system that Earth is a part of using the lowercase form. No matter what volume of pleading that solar system is used in sources to denote something different from Solar System or that the latter is the name preferred in sources generally for the solar system that Earth is a part of, evidence speaks louder than rhetoric. Those assertions are bogus. An ngram search (here) for solar system gives the capitalised form at about 25% but this also captures non-proses uses that tend to over-report capitalisation. When the search is contexturalised to better limit results to prose (here or here) the percentage of capitalisation drops to more like 20% and is quite consistent with the google scolar result. I can see no reason why we should continue with a fallacious premise that makes solar system an exemption from the general advice in the lead. If anything, we should make it clear that solar system should not be capped in any context. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, it's basically a SIGNIFICAPS and WP:SSF thing. The WP astronomy community has long been rather strongly in favor of their own style, and there are a lot of them. Dicklyon (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Often, when editors point to sources to demonstrate how they use upper case, the reply from those who want down casing is: “Meh… they have their style guides, we have ours”.
    I therefore find it amusing that when our guide says something should be upper cased, the reply from the down casing fans seems to be: “But but… LOOK… other sources!!” Blueboar (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Percentages do not enter into this, the only question is if the Solar System is an astronomical object. I think we all agree that it is. That's all that matters. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's all that matters to you. Dicklyon (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

talk:Meovv#Requested move 29 April 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at talk:Meovv#Requested move 29 April 2025 Looks like things are slowly wrapping up, but I’d still love to see more input from everyone. Yuzuhasenkki (Hot Mess, Hot Mess!) 10:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of "through" in "The Legend of Heroes: Trails Through Daybreak"

[edit]

Hi, the current article from the game The Legend of Heroes: Trails Through Daybreak capitalize the word "Through", but I would like to discuss about this. I'm aware the current code of style ask for these prepositions to be capitalized, but it also mention some exceptions, and while this case is not among those exceptions, I noticed there's other articles also not included on those exceptions, like Star Trek Into Darkness (the word "into" should not be capitalized according to the manual). So I'm wondering if this could also be considered an exception, mostly for the fact the word is not capitalized on virtually 100% of the sources for this game, some examples: [35] [36] [37] [38]

Also, I'm not sure if the manual applies only to the article title, or also to the mentions in the article body. Thank you. JJJAGUAR (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing anything else, I would capitalize "through" because it's a preposition of more than five characters. That's fairly standard style guidance. That would apply for the article title and anywhere the title of the game is mentioned in text. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 19:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The guidance applies to the title and the body and non-body content like citations. You say "virtually 100%" of sources lowercase the "through", but you link only non-independent sources. Per MOS:TITLECAPS, an exception can be made for consistent usage in "current, reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I also said: "this case is not among those exceptions" so I'm aware this specific case is not covered there, and I was refering to 100% of sources referencing this game title in particular. Probably my biggest question is way Star Trek Into Darkness managed to be excluded from those rules. JJJAGUAR (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was an ancient and terrible magic involved. I wouldn't recommend speaking its name or attempting to summon it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JJJAGUAR: See Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Star Trek (I/i)nto Darkness. Deor (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "Through" surely should be capitalized according to our rules here, so the current article title is fine. Gawaon (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And, for clarity, that refers to both the article title and to mentions of the game throughout the article (or in other articles). Gawaon (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving old "concluded" RM listings

[edit]

So the #Concluded section that logs old RM listings dating back to 2021 takes up 121k bytes, which is more than half of this page size. Relative to its size, it seems to have little function on this live page. I'm inclined to start an archive page for it, and simply link to it in the archives box and/or atop the "concluded" section itself. My idea is to keep the 2025 ones here but archive 2021–24, any objections? Left guide (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable, with a link to the archive in the concluded section. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Task complete. Archive page at WT:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Concluded RM archive. Left guide (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MGBA

[edit]

can someone clarify if 'mGBA' should be 'MGBA' Thanks! StarStorm10 (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A quick web search shows mGBA to be nearly universal. I think our article title looks right. SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but what about amiibo?
Amiibo - Wikipedia StarStorm10 (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on the meaning of "usually" as used in MOS:MILTERMS

[edit]

Should the spirit and intent of usually capitalized in sources at MOS:MILTERMS be taken as consistent with the general advice on capitalisation given in the lead of MOS:CAPS or is the spirit and intent to create a substantially different and lower threshold for capitalising the types of events named.

Cinderella157 (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject text at MOS:MILTERMS is as follows:

Accepted names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, fronts, raids, actions, operations, and so forth are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in sources (Spanish Civil War, Battle of Leipzig, Boxer Rebellion, Action of 8 July 1716, Western Front, Operation Sea Lion).

The matter is discussed above in the section MOS:MILTERMS.

Please comment by indicating Consistent or Lower. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified at MILHIST. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consistent MOS:MILTERMS is part of MOS:CAPS. The opening paragraph of MOS:MILTERMS states: The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized. The general advice in the lead paragraph of MOS:CAPS is often paraphrased as requiring consistent capitalisation. Some have argued that usually herein means any degree of usage just greater than 50%. As Firefangledfeathers notes above: It's odd to see an unexplained clash between the general rule and the specific rule, and it's untenable to have the clash be open to interpretation. However, such an interpretation clashes not only with the general rule but the more proximate rule in the lead paragraph at MILTERMS. The issue is not just whether usually should reasonably be interpreted as greater than 50% but whether doing so reflects the spirit and intent of the guidance. At multiple places, we are told that the spirit of any P&G is paramount rather than skirting the spirit on some technicality - perceived or real (eg WP:P&G, WP:5P, WP:IAR?, WP:PRINCIPLE, WP:MR and WP:LAWYERING). If the spirit of using usually is intended to create a lower threshold then we would need a substantive reason for doing so.
The Merriam-Webster definition for usually is: according to the usual or ordinary course of things : most often : as a rule : customarily, ordinarily. This source collates linguistic studies on how various terms (including usually) are usually perceived as percentages - reporting that usually is perceived as 70 - 84 percent of the time. It also gives the definition from the OED: In a usual or wonted manner; according to customary, established, or frequent usage; commonly, customarily, ordinarily; as a rule. Those arguing a lower threshold would seize on one part of the definition most often as being just greater than equal. As with any law, rule etc, the meaning of a definition should be read in the fuller context and a balance of all the parts. Seizing on one part in isolation is the epitome of a WP:PETTIFOGING argument. Considering the definition and linguistic interpretation of usually, the meaning is consistent with both the general advice in the lead of MOS:CAPS and the lead paragraph of MILTERMS. These are subject to the same conflicting views on whether these are proper names as any other name on WP which is descriptive and take the definite article in prose - unless they are consistently capped in sources.
Many editors are of a view that any name having a specific referent is a proper name that must be capitalised. While a specific referent is a property of a proper name, it is not a defining property since specificity of referent is also conveyed by the definite article (the). If there is anything that defines a proper name, it is that it is not descriptive. However, it is because of these different views that MOS:CAPS relies on consistent capitalisation in sources to determine what we capitalise rather than semantic arguments of what defines a proper name. This is the consensus of the broader community and is reflected by the consensus of a vast majority of (RM) discussions both generally and more specifically for battles, wars etc. As a group, the names identifying many battles, wars etc take the definite article in prose and are inherently descriptive - eg the Battle of Waterloo is a battle that occurred near Waterloo. As a group, these are commonly capitalised but there are significant number of exceptions for specific battles, wars etc such as the Syrian civil war, where Syrian civil war is not consistently capped in sources. There is no apparent substantive reason why these should be considered as a group as an exception from the general guidance, particularly when the lead paragraph at MILTERMS reinforces that the general guidance apples to MILTERMS.
Asserting that usually creates a lesser standard than the general guidance is clearly contrary to the usual meaning and the spirit and intent, reading in the fuller context of MOS:CAPS as a whole and the more specific guidance at MILTERMS. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many editors are of a view that any name having a specific referent is a proper name that must be capitalised. Those are the rules of the English language: "Names of people, places and organisations are called proper nouns. We spell proper nouns with a capital letter"[39] While a specific referent is a property of a proper name, it is not a defining property since specificity of referent is also conveyed by the definite article (the). "The" is not necessary to make something a "specific referent", we say "Berlin", not "The Berlin"; adding "the" is an exception that arose through use, e.g. "The Grand Canyon". TurboSuperA+(connect) 09:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we do capitalise proper nouns. This is not disputed. However, because something is spelled with a capital letter, that does not make it ipso facto a proper noun|name. English often capitalises descriptive names for emphasis, significance or as a term of art. If you read the Merriam-Webster definition or our article proper noun you will see that proper nouns are also not descriptive. I was not saying that proper nouns must take the definite article (the) to be specific (as you would indicate with the example Berlin). What I was saying is that the definite article confers specificity and therefore, specificity of referent is not a defining property of a proper noun. Consequently, names such as the Cimean B|blocade or the Syrian C|civil W|war are not ipso facto proper nouns because they take the definite article in prose. Your example the Grand Canyon is considered a proper noun even though it might appear descriptive (the canyon which is grand), This is partly because it is common to capitalise descriptors such as canyon, bay, sea etc (but not all descriptors) in geographical names. Secondly, we should not be confused by the etymology of the name where somebody said this looks grand, let's call it the Gand Canyon since they might just as easily called it something else like Kings Canyon. The ngram for Grand Canyon here is pretty much always capped compared with Syrian civil war here [contexturalised for prose]. However, because WP relies on usage in sources to determine capitalisation, we capitalise American Civil War because, even though it is not a true proper noun, it is consistently capitalised in sources (see here).
If we remove usually in the sentence at MILTERMS, it begs the question as to what is an accepted name of wars etc, since clearly, not all wars, battles etc are proper nouns. They are descriptive in nature, they take the definite article in prose and not all are consistently capitalised in sources. For the rest of this, you can read my reply to Chicdat below. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove usually altogether – text was added without discussion by Dicklyon six years ago. I will copy my comment from a recent RM: The operative word here is "accepted" – thus, the event has an actual, accepted common name, not a descriptive name (e.g. American Civil War is accepted, War in Afghanistan is [descriptive]). This is putting into words common sense, something that has never really existed at MOS:CAPS. Accepted = proper name. Proper names are capitalized. Please find any grammar or style guide that contradicts that. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your attempted to remove usually but were reverted by another with the edit summary: ... if this text has been here for 6 years it has implicit consensus ... Consequently, your comment is not a surprise. Removing usually begs the question: what is an accepted name - but you already answer this question: Accepted equals proper name [equals sign won't render here]. Therefore, we capitalise names of wars etc if they are proper names. WP (MOS:CAPS) treats those names which are consistently capitalised in sources as a proper name (per the lead). Accepted equals proper name represents the spirit and intent of the subject sentence. As you note, the names given to wars, battles, revolutions etc are not all proper names and the names of articles using these terms are not always correctly capitalised. Without usually, there is no conflict between the subject sentence and the lead paragraph of MILTERMS or the general advice in the lead. If usually is understood as synonymous with consistently, there is no conflict either. Such an understanding is consistent with reading the definition of usually on balance and the evidence of linguistic studies. Arguments that usually creates a lower threshold for caps than the general advice is based on an aberrant meaning of usually (by taking one part of the definition in isolation rather than on balance) such that the subject sentence would be inconsistent with the general advice. As you have identified, accepted equals proper name, and such an argument is contrary to the spirit of the subject sentence as you have identify it. I see that adding usually affirms the consistency with the general advice and believe this was the intent of adding it. Perhaps Dicklyon can affirm this. With or without usually the intent of the subject sentence is to affirm the general guidance in the lead. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert and remove "usually" per Chicdat, proper names are uppercased on Wikipedia. To lessen that obvious commonsense view, the word "usually" (which means 'most often') was added without discussion and has since been used to lowercase proper names. An easy fix to bring the guideline back the status of its original meaning. As for the meaning of the word "usually", the only objective term used in dictionary meanings is "most often", which asserts a majority, or the name most commonly used, and nothing more. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amending my statement, as people are actually saying "usually" doesn't mean what it means. Either "usually" is kept, which sets the standard of "most often" (i.e. either 50.1% or the name used more than any other) or the wording reverts to include all wars, battles, etc. "Usually" at least sets a bar for those who want to keep it, but it certainly doesn't mean "always" or "consistently", it means most often, and is maybe the best idea to use it for all title casings and not only MILTERMS. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistent, per Cinderella157 and Dicklyon. Gawaon (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistent based on reading the relevant sections of both policies. Seems pretty straightforward: follow abundant reliable sources.
MOS:CAPS: "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia."
MOS:MILTERMS: "[W]herever a military term is an accepted proper name, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized."
As far as Cinderella157's supporting comment, WP:TLDR. Penguino35 (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistent per above. There was never an agreement of intent to establish a lower threshold. That was a reinterpretation after the fact. And the word shouldn't be deleted, as the comments above show some desire for the absence of the word to be interpreted differently. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broken RfC, this RfC is about the word "usually", not about replacing it with another word. Replacing it for another word with a different meaning falls outside the scope of the RfC question. It's either remove it or keep it as is. Wikipedia should not be changing the meaning of a word which is defined as "most often", and "spirit and intent" language is strange wording with no basis in guidelines or policy. "Usually" means what sources say it means, "most often". Either keep it or remove it, but don't redefine it. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nobody who could define English words once and for all, that's not how languages work. Words get their sense from their usage, and the usage can vary over time, region, and users. Dictionaries can help a lot, though of course they too will not always agree. I don't know from which dictionary you drew your "most often" description, but in Wiktionary I find the descriptions "Most of the time; less than always, but more than occasionally" and "Under normal conditions". But where in the "less than always, but more than occasionally" range do we want it to fall in this case? Or what are "normal conditions" and when do they no longer apply? Those are reasonable questions for an RfC to ask and as I understand this RfC, it's meant to do essentially just that – clarify the indented meaning of an inherently somewhat vague and ambiguous word for this specific case. Gawaon (talk) 06:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Large number of undiscussed potentially controversial moves.

[edit]

@Dicklyon: You made five potentially controversial moves in one day on 6 Jun 2025 with no discussion or notifications to any person or project?:

Clearly potentially controversial, "White Forteress" could be a proper or Commonname.

Clearly potentially controversial, "Second Battle could be a proper or Commonname. This is a major battle in the US revolutionary war yet nobody was even notified. (edit add): These two articles have terrible names and a discussion should have happened to come up with better ones.

Clearly potentially controversial, "First Battle could be a proper or Commonname. This is a major battle in the US revolutionary war yet nobody was even notified. (edit add): These two articles have terrible names and a discussion should have happened to come up with better ones.

Clearly potentially controversial, "Right-Bank could be a proper or Commonname.

Clearly potentially controversial, "Chyhyryn Campaign could be a proper or Commonname.

I have no position on any of these moves, but others may. With the number of times you have been popped for this, although doing it correctly has been repeatedly suggested, it sort of looks like a tactic to make controversial moves without any outside input at all. Sammy D III (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I try to make only uncontroversial moves. Are some of those controversial for some reason? Dicklyon (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "fortresses" one is interesting. I would consider both "Khillia Fortress" and "White Fortress" to be proper names, but when you combine them it seems less clear. --Trovatore (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On that particular point, see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 January 29#Capitalisation, Manual of Style. Deor (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are referencing a discussion from 2008? Sammy D III (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not. I don't think the issues have changed that much. --Trovatore (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If someone disagrees with a bold undiscussed move, they can undo it (WP:RMUM). —Bagumba (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How can they disagree if they don't know it happened? Sammy D III (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I only know of watchlists. —Bagumba (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as I finish something I take it off my watchlist, it would be too long and that's the fast track to Ownership. That would also exclude any new eyes, outside opinions. Without some notifications they might as well be a secret. Sammy D III (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP's WP:BB model might not provide the level of notifications that you want. —Bagumba (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Be bold doesn't mean do anything you want. They've been popped before. Of the five articles that dick lyon moved I would have discussed two, I think those Lexingtons are really bad. I'm also in one where a well sourced proper name was changed to mush without discussion even though the proper name was seriously supported by multiple RSs. Sammy D III (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He's made around 500 moves this year alone. At that volume, I'm sure some have been challenged, maybe even reverted. But what's considered an acceptable rate? —Bagumba (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? why are you bringing up Talk:Five freedoms. That article was created at lowercase and has never been moved. Nothing to do with me. Dicklyon (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And if you don't double-count for the talk pages, I've made about 300 article moves this year (less than 2 per day), including nearly 60 in the last two months (less than 1 per day). Very few of these have been challenged or reversed, because the great majority are obviously correct and not controversial. Feel free to review them and let us know if I got something wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:RM#CM, A move is potentially controversial if ... someone could reasonably disagree with the move [emphasis added]. The guidance falling from WP:AT to WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS is that we use sentence case, only capitalising those words that are consistently capped in sources. If DL has conducted a survey of sources and this shows that usage in sources is reasonably far from consistent capitalisation, then this is reasonable grounds to reasonably believe a move is not controversial - a test of due diligence. Conversely, to label such a move as controversial requires similar due dilligence - evidence of usage in sources should be reasonably close to or exceed the threshold of consistent capitalisation in sources. Conjecture that these may or may not be proper names is not reason to presume these are controversial moves. Before making this complaint and claiming that these are controversial, did you make a survey of sources (eg ngrams, google scholar or such) or is this complaint based on unsubstantiated conjector. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's akin to Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". People should revert if they have a reasonable objection. Leave it to someone else to revert if they reasonably object. We don't want to discourage WP:BEBOLD because "someone might" object. —Bagumba (talk) 06:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more than comfortable with my diligence, and I suspect I do more than someone else. dick lyon has never come up with much more than an ngram and a vague MOS link. On a different TP I posted this. All that was necessary was to type two words and hit Return yet another editor didn't even bother to do that much. And neither Oppose there has answered yet. One complained (correctly) that I was rude, but then twisted my question. I was not assuming anything, I was emphasizing a form. After that they used the emphasis the opposite way I presented it.
I have been using the term "proper name". That's apparently another two words that nobody else bothered to search, yet it is the focus of my point. A proper name doesn't need an overwhelming popular vote, it needs a manufacturer to stamp it on something. Advertising, registration, trade-mark, copyright. Number of hits? No. Read the sources? Yes. Popularity may work for Commonname but a proper name is a fact, not a bunch of people's opinion. I've been having problems getting people to acknowledge ANY proper name. The standard you set for "proper name" is clearly impossible, especially when some people don't seem to read sources anyway.
"someone could reasonably disagree with the move". I would disagree with First and Second battle of Lexington, the titles were/are terrible, but I wasn't given the chance, was I? Altho I'm not Milhist I do check it and I didn't see any notification about changing those terrible titles. Diff?
I hear people swearing by MOS positions that they themselves have been in on the writing of. One person talked about a discussion from 2008! Wikipedia hasn't evolved in seventeen years? And anyone who maintains that any MOS is carved in stone either hasn't been here long or completly misses the point. "Break all rules"? I don't buy that at all but some don't seem to even admit that any exception exists.
I am comfortable with what I have posted. If you think that useless crap that you posted on my talk page will intimitate me in any way you are wrong. If you are setting me up for a board, knock yourself out. You notified me about your last board, I know you will here, too. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that useless crap that you posted on my talk page ...: I didn't post anything on your talk page. —Bagumba (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right and I apologize. I was talking to Cinderella157 over you but I didn't make it clear. Sorry. Sammy D III (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let’s not blow this out of proportion. Dick’s moves were made in good faith, but… he was perhaps a bit over-zealous in doing them all at the same time. Doing multiple moves all at the same time (even if each is justified individually) tends to piss people off. It comes across as blind (unthinking) enforcement of “the rules” just because those are “the rules”.
Remember that all of our MOS pages start with a statement that says: ”occasional exceptions may apply”… best practice is to at least ask whether a particular title might be one of those occasional exceptions. Discussion and consensus is never wrong.
On the flip side… if you think that an article is one of those occasional exceptions, and that it was blindly (incorrectly) moved… assume good faith… go to the article talk page, and explain why you think that specific move was wrong. We can always move it back to the original title if there is consensus to do so.
In both cases, it is OK for an article to be at an “incorrect” title while we sort it out. Take the time to discuss and get it right. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for trying to cool things down, but I'm not hot to start with. I'm trying to call attention to a pattern of steamrollering without any compromise and often any discussion while denying facts and ignoring sources. Incredibly closed-minded and on a crusade. dick lyon is just a good hook, he's pretty extreme. We do have an ugly history but I think I have stuck with general ideas, he's sort of minor. Sammy D III (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sammy, did I miss where you indicated what moves I made that you thought were not supported by sources? A few of my moves do get challenged or reverted, and then usually we have an RM discussion, most often reaching consensus to use lowercase. It's really not clear why you think any of the ones you listed might be controversial. Dicklyon (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you said "I think those Lexingtons are really bad" did you mean those are terrible titles, and we should have found better ones? Because I was just concerned about the over-capitalization of the descriptive titles. Maybe this will yield some ideas. Dicklyon (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar: you mentioned "doing them all at the same time". It's not clear what you're referring to. You mean that my average of less than 1 move per day in the last 2 months happened to have 5 mostly unrelated moves one day? Is that being "over-zealous"? Or just that I found a block of time to work on improving the encyclopedia? Dicklyon (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think doing 5 moves in one day is being over-zealous, yes. Blueboar (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sometimes they just come when I find time, and sometimes they come in clusters, like the group I did last night related to Crimean campaigns: [40]. Dicklyon (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, concerning this topic area. RMs should be mandatory. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that RMs are required on the battle articles. I would even suggest a broader RFC.
While I applaud our MOSCAPS regulars in their efforts to “correct” what they see as “over-capitalization” … in this case, they will face a LOT of opposition from the MILHIST regulars (another zealous faction here on WP). I took a look and just about every Second Battle of X article is capitalized. That seems to be the standard. Blueboar (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We had only a couple of MILHIST project members push back against moves toward guidelines in recent years, and almost every case that went to RM had a consensus for lowercase; a few failed to reach a consensus (e.g. this batch, for which I agree that an RFC is perhaps the best next step). I can't find a MIL example of where I proposed lowercase and there was a consensus for uppercase. Dicklyon (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that "Battle" is capped way more often than not in our article titles "First Battle of" and "Second Battle of", etc. If you look at book n-gram stats, it appears that there are at least a small handful of battles that are pretty consistently capped in sources, but also many that are not. That's why I look to sources carefully before doing such a move. Dicklyon (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I found there was another Chyhyryn campaign, Chyhyryn campaign (1678), and moved that to lowercase campaign, too, just now. If you look at books, you'll see that all the places that cap Campaign are citations to "Lubomyr Andrij Hajda, Two Ottoman Gazanames Concerning the Chyhyryn Campaign of 1678 (Phd Dissertation, Harvard University, 1984)",. and all the rest of the mentions use lowercase campaign. Plus we have many RMs with consensus to use lowercase campaign pretty much everywhere. So I'm pretty sure this is still not potentially controversial, and still wondering why Chicdat Sammy mentioned the move of Chyhyryn campaign (1674), saying "Chyhyryn Campaign could be a proper or Commonname". Is every multiword descriptive title "could be a proper or Commonname"? Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you aren't talking about me, but Sammy D III, who started the discussion. To your comment, this conversation appears to be primarily about military campaigns. MOS:CAPS dictated that campaigns were capitalized until you unilaterally removed the passage in 2019. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 19:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He's not talking to me here, I'm objects. Sammy D III (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
? I struck out Chicdat and added Sammy in my remark above. Sammy is the OP who mentioned by move of Chyhyryn campaign (1674), no? Sorry for the confusion. Dicklyon (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re Chicdat's "MOS:CAPS dictated that campaigns were capitalized until you unilaterally removed the passage in 2019": When I removed "campaign" from the list of things conventionally capped in MIL articles, it was because the great majority were at lowercase at that time (Sept 2019), after a series of multi-RM discussions in the months before, such as Talk:Burma campaign/Archive 1#Requested move 26 June 2019 and Talk:Tunisian campaign#Requested move 16 June 2019 and Talk:Waterloo campaign#Requested move 18 July 2019 and Talk:First encirclement campaign#Requested move 20 August 2019. Plus many articles were created at lowercase campaign and don't even have redirects from uppercase Campaign. So what someone wrote in the MIL part of MOS was neither true nor consistent with the MOS more generally. There are still hundreds of articles with titles ending with capitalized "Campaign", but many of those are proper names of official events and campaigns, not military. There are among them still (or again?) quite a few MIL over-capped Campaigns, too, like the batch of new Crimea Campaign articles that I just fixed. It's hard to keep up. But at least we can't blame the MIL MOS for encouraging that like it used to. Dicklyon (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And a discussion on this very page summed up the result of lots of discussions before I removed "campaigns": Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 29#Revisiting this discussion (Campaign vs. campaign). So characterizing my edit as "unilaterally" is not fair. Dicklyon (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just stating the facts; after reviewing the discussions you referenced, I am now wholeheartedly convinced that any names of campaigns that look even remotely descriptive (as demonstrated by usage in reliable sources, which in that case I am happy to concede prefers sentence case) should be lowercased. Even if the RFC above is changed to remove "usually", I support the sentence recommending "campaign" being lowercased. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 00:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you saying so. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What if

[edit]

What if there's a category in which every article title appears in books exactly as we have it WP, with the exception that in WP the last word is always capped, while in books the last word is always lowercase? That is, it's typical of a cluster of articles created by an editor who is unaware that the WP:NCCAPS policy says that titles should be in sentence case. And what if that editor who created them hasn't edited for over 6 months, so is unlikely to respond to a query? And then what if I just fix all those? Is someone going to say those were potentially controversial? Or that 9 moves in a day is too aggressive? And what if the editor who created them actually used lowercase in the text, just not in the bolded lead phrase? Would that be enough to get people off my back? Or do I need to do an RM and wait a few weeks to get them fixed? Dicklyon (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's about Category:Southwest periods in North America by Pecos classification. Nine articles with "Era" and "Period" over-capped. I will fix. Dicklyon (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say - slow down, discuss the articles and get consensus before you move. ANYTHING done “en mass” can be seen as disruptive - even when conforming articles to P&G. Blueboar (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did these. Nothing "en mass", just these 9 needing to have sentence case titles. I think it's important that you recognize there must be some threshold for what is not potentially controversial. If this is not clearly uncontroversial, what is? Dicklyon (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dick, you have been around a long, long time… you already know that just about anything can be controversial.
It’s a good practice to assume that any edit you want to make will be controversial. That doesn’t mean you are “wrong” to make the edit… it does mean you should check to see HOW controversial it might be before you make it. We have talk pages for a reason… use them. Blueboar (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did check. I posted here, and tried to contact the creator by email. And as explained above, it's probably the simplest possible case of title vs sentence case. A routine fix. Or course, anyone can make it controversial if they want to. But there's no reason to waste all the editor time that an RM requires, for simple cases like this. Dicklyon (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have done all that, then you are probably OK to make the moves without an RM… just be prepared to revert yourself and go to RM if someone actually objects. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to just make the change if I'm confident it follows our Manual of Style. In fact, long ago, I'm pretty sure I encouraged Dicklyon to be bold more often rather than propose a requested move. I, like everyone here, have a limited time to spend on this stuff. If it can be done quickly, I say go for it. If someone objects, then further steps should be taken. I'd guess 97% of the time, that's been the end of it, almost every other time a conversation on a talk page explaining Wikipedia style has resolved it. Don't be afraid to BE BOLD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchreiberBike (talk • contribs) 21:57, 10 June 2025

Edit to MOS:GEOCAPS

[edit]

Randy Kryn, in this edit you changed the sentence of GEOCAPS from

Names such as Japan, the Nile, New York, Buenos Aires, and Tierra del Fuego are treated as proper names and take an initial capital letter on all major elements.

to

These are treated like other proper names and take an initial capital letter on all major elements: Japan, the Nile, New York, Buenos Aires, and Tierra del Fuego are treated as proper names and take an initial capital letter on all major elements.

With the edit summary:

added back the removed portion: Geographical or place names are the nouns used to refer to specificPlace names, added back the long-term and important, and for some reason recently removed, language: "These are treated like other proper names and take an initial capital letter on all major elements: ". I haven't looked when this was done, but please refrain from removing this or any other essential guideline language, thanks. [sic]

It was I that made some amendments to this sentence between this edit, with the edit summary:

Resolving an inconsistency between this and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Also resolving that this section does not create a specific exception to the general advice at the lead. The section, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proper names (of which GEOCAPS is part) was merged into MOS:CAPS. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters tells us to cap proper names but doe not tell us what a proper name is. For this, we defer to usage per lead

and this edit. You participated in the changes to this sentence with this edit. The changes were made in consequence of a discussion with ModernDayTrilobite at User talk:ModernDayTrilobite#Close at Talk:Galactic Center#Requested move 21 March 2025 in their capacity as closer (noting they subsequently reverted their close) - particularly this reply by them:

You ask what in GEOCAPS makes the distinction clear, but honestly, I don't think there is a clear distinction drawn for these particular cases; we have to evaluate the evidence on a case-by-case basis to gauge whether there's a proper noun or not.

This was in response to this question:

If I said that I am going to: Japan; Mount Everest; the Gulf of Tonkin, Boston (which could be one of two dozen odd places); or, the town hall, the capital city or the savannah; in each case, I am referring to and going to a definite specific place. In the latter, this is because of the definite article (the). How is it (why does) the galactic centre (of the Milky Way) fall to the former examples and not the latter? What in GEOCAPS makes the distinction clear?

You were a party to both the amendment of this sentence and to the discussion giving rise to it. Your revert at this time (near two months later) has the appearance of being quite disingenuous. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that what had been removed was that different than what you replaced it with (having never memorized the language). In any case, I added back some of the language that was removed, it was quickly reverted, and your preferred wording was back in place when you wrote the above. The point was to assure that other editors know that the names of places are considered proper names, which is less clear in the present (as compared to the long-term) wording. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Kryn, presumably, you became aware of my initial edit because you watch MOS:CAPS and saw the diff that clearly identifies the changes. My edit summary gave a clear statement - ie that the language (if seen as a lesser threshold for capitalisation) was inconsistent with both the general guidance at MOS:CAPS and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). The edit where I wrote If I said that I am going to: Japan; Mount Everest ... is time stamped 10:01, 15 April 2025. My edit initial edit to GEOCAPS is time stamped 02:40, 18 April 2025. Where you say your preferred wording was back in place when you wrote the above would be incorrect? ModernDayTrilobite's response quoted above (You ask what in GEOCAPS makes the distinction clear, but honestly ...) was made in respect to GEOCAPS before my edits. It is time stamped 14:42, 15 April 2025. Reverting my edits for the primary purpose of maintaining a loophole against the underlying principles of the guidance (at both MOS:CAPS and WP:NCGN) would appear to be inappropriate. Is there a substantive reason to challenge the rationale and implementation of my edits or can we consider this resolved? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC) Amended duplicated link target to separate targets. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Cinderella157, on a quick reading I probably missed the implication that you may have been trying to achieve: to lessen the language that all places and geographical locations are proper names (which is what the long-term wording showed). As long as that understanding is still in place and clarified, fine. If not, change it back to the long-term language, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"These are treated like other proper names and take an initial capital letter on all major elements: ... are treated as proper names and ..." is redundant and repetitive. That's reason enough to revert this. But to the extent that this seems like an attempt to (or a with an effect of) bypassing the test at the top of MOS:CAPS (only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia), by trying to declare any appellation applied to something geographical to "be" a "proper name" categorically, it should also be reverted, as not just lacking consensus but directly contrary to long-established consensus encapsulated in the lead of MOS:CAPS and represented in about 20 years of RM results. We base these determinations on source usage not on someone's personal selection of what "proper name" should mean from among the dozens of competing defintions pulled from philosophy and linguistics pundits (see WP:PNPN).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Randy, my edit was intended as a subtle hint that pursing the point was probably not a good idea. You would interpret the former version of GEOCAPS (ie before my initial edit) as requiring capitalisation for any place that can be described as a particular place and have argued this in RMs (all places and geographical locations are proper names).[41] Per the post close discussion with MDT the guidance does not make a clear distinction as to what geographical names should be capitalised just because they have a specific referent but these must be assessed on a case by case basis - ie we are back to the general guidance to determine what should be capitalised.

You appear to be arguing that GEOCAPS is a loophole to go against the underlying principles of MOS:CAPS and WP:NCGN. This would appear to be against the spirit of the pertinent guidance and could reasonably be seen as falling to Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and Wikipedia:Gaming the system. Opposing an edit which would clarify the guidance (in accordance with the underlying principles) for the primary purpose of maintaining a loophole that can be exploited to game the system only compounds this. This is not a good faith reason to challenge the rationale and implementation of my edits. Furthermore, you have alleged that I edited GEOCAPS before MDT's comment that I rely upon rather than relying upon MDT's comment to support the change. That is clearly a false allegation.

Your novel interpretations of P&G can be amusing but ... Can we consider this resolved?

(Cinderella157's post moved from my talk page to this main discussion) I don't really know what comment came first, many of your comments are tl;dr so you shouldn't be surprised that acting on those discussions may be the first that some editors are aware of them. In this case MOS:GEOCAPS used to be very clear about the casing of named places and geographical features: "Geographical or place names are the nouns used to refer to specific places and geographic features. These are treated like other proper names and take an initial capital letter on all major elements: Japan, Mount Everest, Gulf of Tonkin." I don't know how it can be clearer, so forgive my confusion that it really didn't mean what it said about proper names. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

[edit]