Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Black and White people

Old debate, reborn. I think this should at least be mentioned in the MOS. Fact is, it's strange that ALL nationalities and ethnicities are capitalized in English except for these two words. I've heard all the arguments, the main two being:

  • "Black" and "White" are catch-all terms and do not refer to a single nationality or ethnicity
  • "Black" and "White" are ordinary words denoting colors, therefore no need to capitalize them.

Simple answers to both -

  • "Asian" is a much larger catch-all term referring to over 2.5 billion people, or nearly half the world's population, and that's capitalized
  • "White" and "Black" are color words, but their meaning is clearly different (Black people aren’t black and White people aren’t white), but the words refer specifically to ethnicity.

Most dictionaries have "black" and "white", but most of the major ones, especially the OED, are descriptive, therefore reflect usage. The current usage prevails with non-capitalization, but there's no guarantee this won't change at some point in the future.

An increasing number of websites capitalize these two terms and I believe it should at least be mentioned both in the MoS and in the relevant aricles for Black people and White people that there is a debate and a dual usage on spelling. I also believe WP editors should be allowed to write "Black/White" in an article if they wish to, instead of "black/white", without fear that someone will come along after them and revert the caps. After all, a lot of source material used as references in WP articles uses the capitalized forms. Just in the same way that the choice of American or British English is left to the authors (e.g. color/colour) as long as, of course, there's consistency within the article.

Let's not forget that Wikipedia is itself a descriptive encyclopedia. It therefore needs to reflect the usage of a large portion of the world's English-speaking population who think these two words (the ONLY two ethnic descriptors in the entire language to lack capitalization!) should be capitalized. BigSteve (talk) 08:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

p.s. This is just as a by-the-by and not an argument, but simply food-for-thought: the French language, which does not capitalize ethnicity/nationality words when they are used as adjectives but does capitalize them when they're used as direct demonyms (i.e. "une personne anglaise" but "un Anglais") does capitalise "un Blanc/les Blancs" and "un Noir/les Noirs" (not always, but certainly more often than is the practice in English. Major dictionaries also reflect this – Larousse). Whereas English, which always capitalizes such words...doesn't do so with these particular two words. Strange or what... BigSteve (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Asian comes under the rule that adjectives formed from proper nouns (and nouns based on them) are capitalized. --Boson (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Might well be. But some rules come in on an individual basis, and I believe the argumentation for allowing the capitalization of "Black" and "White" is sound. Not to mention that the OED, which I somehow failed to point out earlier, acknowledges & allows these two capitalizations, as well as explaining that they indeed refer to groups of many ethnicities:
  • black > adjective – 2 (also Black) belonging to or denoting any human group having dark-coloured skin, especially of Afrtican or Australian Aboriginal ancestry
  • white > adjective – 2 (also White) belonging to or denoting a human group having light-coloured skin (chiefly used of peoples of European extraction)
Oxford Dictionary of English – Second Edition, Revised. Oxford University Press, 2005.
Can we therefore add a mention in the MOS that allows these 2 capitalizations? BigSteve (talk) 06:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there is any question that they are often capitalized, and I see no compelling reason why the MoS should advise against that practice. Personally, I don't see a reason for explictly mentioning it at all. I suppose such a statement might be used as a justification for reversion when editors differ on whether "black" should be capitalized in a specific context, but I don't think that would necessarily be helpful. Like many other words, I think, "black" should be capitalized when used like a proper noun/adjective but not as a matter of course when used as a common noun or adjective (without implying self-identification with a particular ethnicity or culture) - even when "black" actually refers to a dark-brown skin colour. Hence, I would normally prefer the uncapitalized "black people", but I would prefer the capitalized "Black English" when referring to a particular language variety used by British people of African or Caribbean descent. I can see advantages and disadvantages in mentioning it. --Boson (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Certainly valid points, but I think it should be explicitly clarified in the MoS that the two words may be capitalized, as well as mention this in the White people & Black people articles. Because the case is far from clear – there are long discussions & arguing over the matter in nearly every archive of the Black people talk page – here are just a few examples – Arch-17, Arch-16, Arch-11, and quite a heated one here Arch-4 – and none of these long talk sections have come up with definitive conclusions but have merely petered out, until the next archive of the talk page. Hence why I feel the MoS should mention it, and say that it's okay to use both the capitalized and lowercased versions of both words in all articles. The fact that the words are lowercased in nearly all articles, despite the amount of editors stating in said talk pages that they prefer to capitalize them, suggests to me that there are editors who systematically go around articles editing out the capitals. I'm not going to go around investigating it but it seems self-evident. Let's briefly mention it here in the MoS. BigSteve (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I came to the article page for guidance on this sticky point. I agree, some sort of rule ought to stated clearly.Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Prepositions in composition titles

I'm sick of RMs requesting we capitalize four-letter prepositions just because—oh, say, everyone else does. Why have a MOS if we're going to ignore it in favor of popularity contests? The five-letter rule is an aberration that makes us look silly. I'm officially requesting we change "containing four letters or fewer" to "containing three letters or fewer" on this page, at WP:NCCAPS, and in other relevant places. Let's put this to rest. --BDD (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of this RfC. It does not seem to be worded neutrally or clearly. How is "containing three letters or fewer" better than "containing four letters or fewer"? If this is more in line with more style guides, then show us that. My impression is the opposite. And what is it that you expect to put to rest? Dicklyon (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I expect to put to rest petty RMs such as the one regarding Star Trek Into Darkness and the current one at Talk:A Lot like Love. I think when our style differs from those used by other sources, we look eccentric at best, unprofessional at worst. Though it occurs to me we may simply be better off killing the preposition rule off altogether and following capitalization used in reliable sources (then again, that veers us into WP:SSF territory). --BDD (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
As we've established before, the real world seems to prefer four letters or fewer in various style guides. The way to put it to rest is to follow these style guides and enforce our own MoS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The change from 4 to 3 is pointless and will not make us look any less (or more) silly. If you want a change, we could change to an explicit list of which prepositions we capitalize and which we don't, and then we can argue over each preposition's inclusion or exclusion from those lists. But this RFC is not going to put anything to rest. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd be more inclined to believe these claims that this RfC won't solve anything if someone could point me to RMs where capitalization of a three-letter word is in dispute. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don%27t_Stop_%27Til_You_Get_Enough&diff=522385857&oldid=488332890 -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
    Missing from that example: dispute. --BDD (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
    The requested title capitalizes a three-letter preposition, contrary to your "put this to rest" rule. Missing from this RFC: benefit to the encyclopedia. As I said, the better approach would be to specify which three-letter prepositions to capitalize (per? via? til?), which four-letter prepositions to capitalize (like? into?), and which not to. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
    It's an oddball case that we should fix; dispute is hopefully unlikely, but it's clear that editors need guidance and that there's nothing uniquely special about 4 except that it is what most style guides use. Dicklyon (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
    The oddball case was requested to be moved to the "unfixed" version per common usage (per the edit summary in the diff I linked); dispute is not all that unlikely. Other oddballs can be found[1] -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    Also, in the case of 'til, as it's an abbrevation of the 5-letter until, it could be confusing as to whether the 4-letter rule applies to it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    Right, more confusion. 'til is a contraction of until. til (no apostrophe) is a three-letter preposition in some titles, not an abbreviation or contraction (like twixt or tween are not abbreviations or contractions of betwixt or between, just shorter words meaning the same thing). And till is a four-letter variant of the five-letter until. You can also check "per" and "via", short contractions that are often capitalized in composition titles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    The other issue of course is that if we were to change to three, we will have the opposite situation, where other sources have four with a lowercase. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. And there are many more like that, in my impression. Dicklyon (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
@BDD: The proposal is to change how we capitalize four-letter words, so I'm not sure why you're asking for evidence of disputes with three-letter words. The guideline for three-letter prepositions won't be affected by this RfC in any way, will it? By my experience, uncapitalizing certain four-letter prepositions like "from" and "with" tends to be uncontroversial, while others such as "like" or "unto" are more likely to be challenged. No doubt if the guideline was to capitalize there would continue to be proposals to uncapitalize, so I don't see how the proposal would put an end to the disputes really. Jafeluv (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The main consideration should be that the MOS should only be consulted in cases where we don't have clear guidance from usage in reliable sources. --B2C 22:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
    I disagree that that needs to be the main consideration for prepositions in composition titles any more than it needs to be the main consideration for allcaps in trademarks. WP can has its own style without violating RS. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The four letter rule should be softened or refined. Not all four letter words are the same. Not all usages of the same word is the same. Title case, which is preferred in creative titles, is not well defined. There is creative nuance in the capitalisation of certain words in title case that cannot be captured by counting characters. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
But just because it "looks wrong" to you, doesn't mean it is wrong, or that it would look wrong to someone else. That's just subjective. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Does it not "look wrong" to you? After 6 months, you seem to be still thinking about whether its a phasal verb [2]. If everyone agrees that it looks wrong, is that still subjective? What is so wrong about subjective? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I thought it was familiar! In that case, actually "to be into" could be a phrasal verb, and therefore it would be wrong, and not subject to these rules anyway! --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes. I found it when looking for other proper name titles containing "into". My point is that the rules are too hard, in part to follow, in part to accept as non-arbitrary. I managed to work out what a preposition is, but still have trouble with phrasal verbs. I think in this case a rules compliant case can be made to capitalise "into", though I am sure that I couldn't explain it to my mother. Star Trek Into Darkness I can't explain using the rules. I think that, unless someone can refine the rules, they should be softened, allowing/encouraging subjective decision making until better rules are written. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's complicated and not something easily understood - took me a while too! However, if I'm right, capitalising "into" in He's Just Not That into You would be per the current rules, if "to be into" is a phrasal verb. Changing our guideline (to three, four or five letters) would not make a difference in this case, and wouldn't make the rules easier to understand. The problem is that it is the rules of the language that are complicated in the first place. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Three possibilities:

  1. Standard English prose: capitals (upper-case letters) only for initial letters of a sentence plus proper nouns and a few special cases. Proper nouns in English are a very restricted class. This restrained system has the benefit of great legibility. Lower case letters usually have more shape than upper case versions, and this does make lower-case text more legible.
  2. All content words capitalised (in effect all verbs, nouns, adverbs and adjectives) but not function words (prepositions, connectives and any other non-content types).
  3. Every single word capitalised. This is common in display typography and advertising. A variant is: all letters in upper case, plus larger size capitals for initial letters of all words. Bear in mind here that advertisers, book publishers and the like are in the business of self-aggrandisement. We are in the business of comprehension.

Personally, I think the first style is best, the second is just about bearable, and the third ignorant and horrendous. Whatever you decide, you can't play ducks and drakes with word length or word proximity. That just leads to chaos. Another issue is the relationship between different parts of the style guide. It's got to be said that WP is very out-of-date in its typography. It needs to be simplified and streamlined. This is a job for a professional typographic designer, not an on-line committee. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is regarding composition titles, not article titles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I was referring to. I believe compositions are adequately signalled by italic font, without any added capitalisation. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • For titles of books and journals, US & UK style everywhere except for library catalogs is to capitalize every significant word. Libraries do it differently, basically because Dewey started it that way and he was a proponent of spelling and punctuation reform--there is no good reason and I regard it as an aberration. A book or composition title is really a proper name, and for modern English books we should follow the title as used on the title page of the book. (and for other languages of course their own rules). Even libraries, peculiar as they are, follow the book in hand in all other respects.(and as for italics, you still need a rule for those compositions not in italics, like article titles in journals and newspapers).
  • Another possibility is to follow our general rule, not to change what's there but to follow the style of existing references. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I support this. Suggest changing the current text ("Prepositions containing four letters or fewer (of, to, in, for, on, with, etc.; but see below for instances where these words are not used as prepositions)" to:
Prepositions: follow the style of existing references, where the style is a form of Title Case; where unclear, default to lowercase when containing four letters or fewer (of, to, in, for, on, with, etc.; but see below for instances where these words are not used as prepositions)
and probably restructure the section to address prepositions on their own. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
That would be completely unmanageable, as different publications will use their own in-house style guides, so we would have conflict. Also, remember why publications have consistent style guides. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Unmanageable? Let's not get hysterical. We're talking about the capitalization of prepositions. The existing rule creates absurdities. It makes us look ridiculous. It upsets people. Have you managed a rationization of Star Trek Into Darkness? Where there are good reasons, source-based, to not blindly follow this five letter rule. Sources, which largely will reflect the creators intended nuance. Songs, books, movies, the author often titles them in Title Case, sometimes applying nuance to preositions that defy blind guidance. I don't remember. Why do publications have style guides? And why does that constrain us? It's unmanageable to let article writers be guided by sources? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
From WP:MOS: "The Manual of Style documents Wikipedia's house style. It helps editors write articles with consistent, clear, and precise language, layout, and formatting. The goal is to make Wikipedia easier and more intuitive to use. Consistency in language, style, and formatting promotes clarity and cohesion."
From WP:NCCAPS: "Because credibility is a primary objective in the creation of any reference work, and because Wikipedia strives to become a leading (if not the leading) reference work in its genre, formality and an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility." --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Even if this is to be believed, does it speak to you about a need for a five letter preposition rule? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
We've been through all of this before. This seems to be the rule favoured by most other style guides, so this is the rule that we have decided to follow. An attempt to change this was not supported. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
We've been here before, but we've never come through. Wikipedia's needs are very different to other publications. Where was it established that consensus supports a rigid five letter preposition rule? To say we stake our credibility on sticking to the five letter preposition is absurd. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

History of the 4/5 letter caps split

Partially answering Smokey's question "Where was it established that consensus supports a rigid five letter preposition rule?" This provision was imported in this 2009 edit, from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/MUSTARD/Capitalization#Capitalization where it was previously used only for music compositions. I can't understand the history before that, as that page is made via transclusion in a way that I don't get. Dicklyon (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be happy to see it changed to be more like Chicago, always downcasing prepositions. But I'm not happy approaching that as an exception for one obscure title with no coverage in English-language sources. Smokey, if you'll sign up to the general scheme of MOS:CAPS that WP avoids unnecessary capitalization, we can probably make progress in this direction. But you seem to be of two minds on that. Dicklyon (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Always downcasing prepositions may be more agreeable than the 4/5 letter split. It is already well accepted that Wikipedia prefers sentence case titles, so it may be most easily agreed to us sentence case even more broadly. Why should composition titles have a separate preference?
I am more concerned about the attitude spreading that Wikipedia has these relatively unimportant rules, that they are enforced by expert proof editors, that ordinary editors need to learn, and that we are not guided by the subject-specific sources. Policy should describe practice, and the MOS seems to have imposed a practice without sufficient agreement from the community.
Whatever the guideline says, it needs to describe reality, including "Star Trek Into Darkness" (would moving to "Star trek into darkness" be acceptable?).
I think it is better that most creative titles, whether of people, movies, songs, books, or other creations, should be used in the form that is most correct or used or the owners preference, within the range of reasonable forms of title case. However, I am interested in others' reasonable views. So far in this section, I find DGG's the most reasonable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
We need to follow real-world usage, and general form is that composition titles, be it books, films, songs, etc., use title case. As long as we follow established rules for this from other style guides (and the 4/5 breakpoint seems to be the most common, although not the only method), then we are in line with established usage. Downcasing every word is not an acceptable option, but every preposition might be if, like Dick says, other style guides use this. We shouldn't however be trying to change our style guide because of one exception. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
“We need to follow real-world usage” Do we? Says who? In general, we, Wikipedia, are lead by our sources. Style guides are not our sources. I don’t think our style choices need to follow real-world usage at all.
“use title case” you say? Can you go to Title case and then come back and tell me which one you mean?
“Downcasing every word is not an acceptable option” (Sentence case?) Not acceptable? (pretty absolute there!) Why not? Are not all Wikipedia article titles composition titles?
“We shouldn't however be trying to change our style guide because of one exception.” Do you count only one exception? I got the impression (possibly inaccurate), that the MOS is frequently challenged for popular cases, and that the MOS experts reign in all others. It’s a very bad look.
How about: We should try to change our style guide because (1) it was written without sufficient community input; and (2) it often produces stupid looking titles, such as “Star Trek into Darkness” and “Journey Through the Decade”. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
We do not source style, that is why the MOS exists. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but saying that “Star Trek into Darkness” and “Journey Through the Decade” both look "stupid", and the overall attitude in your above post makes me question whether you will be satisfied with any resolution. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Two obvious solutions satisfy: One is sentence case. Another is "no simple absolute rule on capitalizing prepositions" (eg DGG's suggestion). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Sentence case is wholly inappropriate for composition titles. If we followed that method, we would be the only publication in the English-speaking world that utilised it. You're worried about the "existing rule [making] us look ridiculous", well - try using sentence case... --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Wholly inappropriate? Why? Is not every Wikipedia article title a composition title?
Sentence case could work, and we prefer it for all other titles.
My preference is to use the title case variant (prepositions being the most variable part) as used in sources, if the sources use one of the standard title cases (rejecting all uppercase and all lowercase, but accepting source use of any of the eight variants in between). We will not look ridiculous using a standard title case used by the sources, this is easiest for the subject specific editors writing the article, and it fits the principle of being lead by out sources ("to follow the style of existing references"). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Smokey, your suggestions seem to be all over the map. Sentence case for compositions? CT style for article titles? Downcase all prepositions except Into? I'm confused. Do you have a proposal for what the MOS could say that would be better? Or you just don't like WP having central style guidance for such things? Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dick. Well, I didn't turn up at RMs and the WP:MOS and DAB and AT with a prepared plan for change. I just wandered in and found some specific things to be screwie. Here, the screwie thing is the composition titles preposition rule (that's about it), combined with several people's need to enforce it absolutely, unless too many of the community get drawn in when it is a popular subject.
Your proposal seems to fail on Star Trek into Darkness (or do you support that title?). I did elsewhere offer a rationale for considering it an unusual exception, due to it having an implied colon, but others didn't like the weak evidence in English language sources (best evidence was in foreign posters).
My support is for DGG's suggestion, which I read as allowing generous latitude for exceptions on prepositions, based on usage in references. Would you like for me to tentatively edit to that effect? I daresay it matches practice moderately well, and is far more justifiable right now than writing in a new prescriptive policy.
I have mentioned other possibilities, true. Can someone give a more reasoned opposition for sentence case for everything? I don't know one, and would be interested. I am not actually a fan of converting existing composition titles wholesale over to any new style. In fact, I predict that the effort wouldn't survive the backlash.
What is "CT style"?
Central guidance is good. But some people should check the meaning of "guidance". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

More on games: cricket

A debate at Talk:2013_Ashes_series is exploring whether the matches that constitute the Ashes series should be called Test matches or test matches. Cricket literature and the press favor the former; the Concise Oxford Dictionary and consistency with other sports favor the latter. Some input from contributors with a knowledge of the MoS and its application across the Wikipedia project would be appreciated. Travelpleb (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Confusion over "proper names"

There is too often editorial confusion at RMs about what a proper name is. Sources definitely show little evidence of having sorted out what a proper name is, just on the basis of logic. In particular, I want to make these points:

  • What is and is not a proper name is contextual, controversial, and largely irrelevant to determining the difficult cases dealt with in RMs.
  • What is and is not a proper name is not settled by the use of capitals in sources, which use capitals with all manner of obscure motivations.
  • Wikipedia style guidelines should determine style on Wikipedia; undigested and fluctuating style whims in "reliable sources" should not.
  • Even if reliable sources can be found that somehow ought to trump rational, consensual guidelines on Wikipedia, they're not always consulted or reported consistently and logically. I don't see much evidence of proper Google book searches in researching for RM discussions (by proper, I mean basic things like filtering out occurrences in titles from search results); I don't pretend to know how to optimise Google ngrams, but I can see that they're not properly used as a tool.

Overleaf, the lead is most unsatisfactory. Tony (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

A particular problem is the instruction: "Use lowercase, except for proper names".
The real situation is explained quite well at Proper noun, but sadly this article appears to fall into the "too long; didn't read" (tldr) category for many of those participating in discussions on capitalization.
The relevant summary is: There isn't a 1:1 relationship between proper nouns/noun phrases (proper names) and capitalization. As Tony says, the AT page is quite wrong in this respect.
Examples: "He drove a Chevrolet", "She is a Londoner" – neither "Chevrolet" nor "Londoner" are proper names but they are capitalized. "It's on page 5", "See chapter 4" – "page 5" and "chapter 4" are grammatically proper names but they are not capitalized in modern punctuation (although they used to be and I wish they still were). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

[transferred from my original post at WP:TITLE; this is the right place for the thread.] Tony (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: Sources that are reliable for facts are not always good for style, and certainly don't "trump rational, consensual guidelines on Wikipedia" - see Wikipedia:Specialist style fallacy for a fluent explanation of why this is the case. Shem (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the situation is confused, and that the lead at MOS:CAPS is unsatisfactory. I do believe that most cases would come out well if people would respect what it says there, "words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia", in spite of how that connection of sources to the concept of proper is not quite right. But editors tend to want to follow sources that are specialist in their areas, ignoring the idea of "consistently" as being the threshold for when WP considers caps to be "necessary". I have a hard time knowing how to come up with a fix, however, given the complexity of the situation, and the rampant desire of editors to capitalize Random Stuff. Dicklyon (talk) 06:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

MOS:CT overriding COMMONNAME

Let me start out by admitting that this primarily regards the title of Journey Through the Decade. I am also aware that a move review is ongoing but throughout the requested moves I've made and the move review people are suggesting that policy be changed rather than exceptions be made to policy so here I am.

As it currently stands, this manual of style states that the words "Journey", "Through", and "Decade" should all be capitalized. However, as I attempted to point out in multiple requested move discussions, reliable sources state that the title is parsed as "Journey through the Decade" without a capitalized "Through". These can be seen here: Billboard-Japan.com, artist's website, Oricon charting news, Natalie.mu, iTunes. This is also clearly shown on the album cover.

Now, why does this guideline override what is blatantly clear WP:COMMONNAME usage simply because of whatever the "preposition" rule states?—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

WP is certainly not the only place using editorial style discretion to capitalize longer words. jpopasia, songster, dailymotion, lyricsmania, testi-di-canzoni.com, MusicPlayOn.com, and many others do it the way many style guides recommend, as we do. There is no real value in WP trying to decide which sources to copy styling from when we have our own house style. Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Every single website you picked is user submitted (the videos on Dailymotion and musicplayon were uploaded illegally too). Everything I picked was a reliable source. One of them is even the artist's official website. If I can show reliable sources that state that the name is commonly written a certain way, including on the album cover where capital letters and lower case letters are clearly used (unlike on album covers that may have the titles written entirely in capital letters), why shouldn't that way be used? Why are we correcting for something that was a deliberate choice?—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
On this talk page, there are proposals to change the MOS:CT to: (1) capitalize prepositions more than three letters (won't help this issue); (2) not capitalize any prepositions (would help this issue); (3) capitalize prepositions of two or more syllables (would help this issue); (4) to weaken the guidance on prepositions, allowing more leeway for case by case exceptions based on usage in sources (would help this issue). There may be other ideas. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Why bother when COMMONNAME says otherwise? However, this may cause some problems with other mixed capitalizations such as Life Is Show Time, which has its title universally parsed as "Life is SHOW TIME" in reliable sources.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
"WP:Commonname" says to use a commonly recognized name. I don't think the capitalization of a preposition renders a name "unrecognizable", so my position is that this does not rise to the level of WP:AT policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Changing capitalization has to be covered somewhere because all reliable sources have this song's title written in the particular way that current Wikipedia guidelines forbid because no one will allow exceptions. This shouldn't come down to a choice between what arbitrary group of words should be capitalized or not. Actual usage should determine that.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Your position seems to match proposal #(4), which I support. I support it with the caveat that we only consider actual use where actual use uses one of the normal title cases. We all agree to reject ALLCAPS usage, I think. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay. But how would you deal with "Life is SHOW TIME"?—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd look at source usages. I don't choke on it, but I expect others would. I might say something mentioning M*A*S*H. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC). I'd prefer to focus talk on prepositions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
This doesn't really help. I have reliable sources that show usage and you'd rather some other part be changed that just so happens to help my problem.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME is not applicable here. The name does not include capitalisation. We do not source the style. That's what we have a manual of style for. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay. So why use a style that is clearly not in use in reliable sources?—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Aside from it being in use in some sources, per WP:MOS: "The Manual of Style documents Wikipedia's house style. It helps editors write articles with consistent, clear, and precise language, layout, and formatting. The goal is to make Wikipedia easier and more intuitive to use. Consistency in language, style, and formatting promotes clarity and cohesion." and per WP:NCCAPS: "Because credibility is a primary objective in the creation of any reference work, and because Wikipedia strives to become a leading (if not the leading) reference work in its genre, formality and an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility." --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It's in use in all (reliable) sources. Why should the internal style dictate the use of a title when all sources say it is something else? Clearly an exception should be made for such instances where an outside style predominates.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd argue not. It's about house style and how we treat words when presented to us. Other publications have their house style, and that is what they follow. We have ours. And it looks like the move discussion also found consensus not to make an exception. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) But isn't it common sense to use what everyone else uses? Surely if we are to be credible, we do not want to appear to readers that we are wrong. Wikipedia is a tertiary source - a meta-point for info. We should therefore use what secondary sources use. Insulam Simia (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
We are not "wrong". This is how we treat words in composition titles, and it is based on other style guides. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wikipedia:Remember the reader. Are readers meant to know the house style, or any other house style? As far as I'm concerned, they will assume it is wrong because it was different everywhere else. Insulam Simia (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
When reading another publication, which will follow its own house style, would a reader assume that something like this is wrong? I think not. Just because this is Wikipedia, and edited by the community, it doesn't mean that we should not follow our house style in the same way that any other publication would follow theirs. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The only reason that the move request was not successful is because of this guideline and the Wikipedia community's strict interpretation of it without allowing WP:IAR. So now I can't request a change to the guideline because the move request was not successful? I'm tired of going around in these stupid circles. This is not a house style within other publications. It is an intentional style by the record label and this style is copied throughout all Japanese language media. This type of stylization is what allows the Japanese public to know that "SAKURA" is a different song from "Sakura", "sakura", "桜", "サクラ", and "さくら". So why should we ignore a clear stylization that is universally used just because "prepositions of more than 5 letters should be capitalized" is what someone decided here years ago?—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
A style guideline should not be changed to accommodate an article. That said, there have been discussions in the past regarding changing our style guideline, and not capitalising any prepositions was one of the suggestions. Maybe this will happen, but there are many other articles that any change would affect than just this one. However, your claim that it "is an intentional style by the record label" is unfounded WP:OR. And remember this is the English Wikipedia. How things are styled in languages that use non-Latin alphabets are not really relevant here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that I can violate the original research policy in an argument on a talk page by suggesting a record label intentionally chose to write the name of this song as "Journey through the Decade" and that's what all Japanese media does as well. And based on your argument, why should a guideline for English language composition titles be enforced on a Japanese language song that just happens to use the Latin alphabet for its title? And this is still some circular bullshit. I can't suggest a page should be moved because of this guideline and I cannot convince anyone at this guideline to modify it because no one thinks the page I'm using as an example should be moved because of the guideline.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
You're trying to change the guideline to fit one song, rather than consider the wider implication - that's why you can't convince anyone to change it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I was trying to use it as an example to allow for the wider implications. I could also argue about "On The Painted Desert - Rampant Colors", "Lost the way", Knows the pain, "i'LL get the freedom", ∀, "i hate u", "Kissing til i die", "question at me", etc.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Revert of changes to WP:MILTERMS

On 18 April 2013 user:Topbookclub inserted the words "Enlisted personnel in Navy and Coast Guard forces capitalize each particular name of their rating. For example, Aviation Boatswain's Mate Chief John Smith." into WP:MILTERMS without discussion. I didn't notice it at the time.

It is confusing for two reasons:

  1. The principles are laid down, as WP:MILTERMS says, at WP:JOBTITLES, and makes quite clear that titles should be rendered "For example, Brigadier General John Smith, but John Smith was a brigadier general." Clearly therefore, "enlisted personnel in navy and coast guard forces" are merely a subset of all the other titles covered in this paragraph, not an exception. For example, "Regimental sergeant major John Smith" would be wrong (per WP:JOBTITLES), but it isn't a navy or coast guard rank.
  2. This paragraph is now being used as a reason for capitalising naval and coast guard ranks wherever they appear, not just when attached to names (eg here, here and this cut-and-paste move (which has since been fixed)). I can see how this mistake has been made on a superficial reading, and it is deeply unhelpful.

I have reverted the changes to WP:MILTERMS in accordance with the principle of WP:BOLD; I do not believe this in controversial to those who understand the MOS, but there may be push back from those who feel that all military ranks should be capitalised on sight - and I do come across a fair number. Here is the place to discuss. Shem (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Job title capitalization question

Are the following two instances correct examples of capitalization per the third bullet at WP:JOBTITLES?

Are these correct?

  • Bob Smith was Executive Director of the Smith Foundation.
  • Bob Smith was the Smith Foundation's executive director.

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't capitalize any of the job titles in the examples above. They aren't proper nouns. SchreiberBike talk 18:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Death Note question

Hi, I have a bit of a quandary at the page for the animanga Death Note. The work is originally written in Japanese (hence, no capitals anywhere). The official translation of the manga guidebook capitalises such terms as "Death Note" (meaning the several macguffin notebooks which the plot revolves around) and "Shinigami Eyes". Capitalising these on the Wikipedia page, however, looks outlandish, and I think a good case could be made that they are actually not proper nouns. Any advice? Vashti (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Anyone? Bueller? The impression I'm getting from the talk page is that this is a good case for WP:IAR. Vashti (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Uh, they should definitely be proper nouns and capitalized. If it's a concept not found in any other work of fiction then it should be capitalized.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Which section of the MOS states that? I can't find it. Vashti (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
It's just common sense. And if you have a reliable source that states that the terms are capitalized as proper nouns in English then you should follow that instead of catering to the whims of a fandom that never bothered to check.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the fandom typically capitalises the terms. I didn't realise Wikipedia decided what was and wasn't a proper noun based on "common sense"; I thought we had the MOS for that. This whole page is full of people talking about whether sources are reliable style guides. Vashti (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Why do you need a style guide to decide whether something is or not a proper noun. At least within the context of anime these things can be inferred if they're words completely out of place in Japanese.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
There isn't anything out-of-place about, for example, 死神の目 (shinigami eyes). That's just a term coined by the manga, meaning "the eyes of a shinigami". Some of these cases are arguable ("Shinigami Realm" as a placename, for instance), but "shinigami" certainly is not universally capitalised in translation. As for "death note" - I don't agree *at all* that you can tell that is a proper noun by inference. It's talked about with the indefinite article ("a death note") and in plural. We now have such sentences as "The task force learn of the Death Notes and confirm the existence of Shinigami" - which, in my view, is too many capital letters for anyone, and something the MOS is intended to help avoid. Vashti (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
As a phrase it's unique to the manga which means it is a proper noun. And your determination of that sentence is your own. There's nothing on this page that really comes close to defining what is and is not a proper noun, but you could just as easily treat these things as trademarks. You can easily as much say "He bought an iPad" as much as you can say "He uses a Death Note".—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, one of us is failing to understand what a proper noun is. *Many* works of fiction coin unique terms, and most of them are not capitalised by default. I think where I'm going is that the capitalisation in the manga guidebook translation (and this capitalisation is all in the translation, not the original) is gratuitous, and not necessarily something that Wikipedia should follow. Regardless, I don't think the two of us are going to convince each other, but perhaps someone else will contribute. I do find it a bit weird that, having come to the MOS for advice on use of capitals, I'm being told the MOS is unnecessary. Vashti (talk) 08:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
If it's the official translation then guess what it's not gratuitous. But there is nothing on this MOS that decides what is and is not a proper noun. I can't remember why I had this page watched but I felt like saying something regarding this. To me it just makes sense that "Death Note" and "Shinigami (Eyes)" are capitalized. To the fans it does as well. To you it doesn't.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Obviously I'll abide by consensus, but I do want to be sure that the consensus is what you say it is before I accept what I think are changes that make the writing unencyclopaedic. Vashti (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Sample paragraph from the guidebook: "The person who borrows the Death Note will not be followed by a Shinigami. The Shinigami always remains with the owner of the Death Note. Also, the borrower cannot trade for the Shinigami Eyes." This is the sort of prose I'm reluctant to leave on Wikipedia - because, frankly, we're capable of better writing than that. Vashti (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, Dennis Owen Frohlich wrote a paper about Death Note which does not appear to capitalise the terms "shinigami", "shinigami eyes" or "death note". I'd argue this gives us precedent for academic writing. Example: "The shinigami Rem brought a second death note to the human world and gave it to Misa to use as she pleases. ... To protect herself, she relinquishes ownership of her death note, losing all memories of the death note and her shinigami eyes." The Asia-Pacific Journal doesn't capitalise "death note". We're not writing a fan book. Vashti (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
If official sources refer to something as a proper noun, then we shouldn't really go with two people who just happen to believe otherwise.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Let's leave this for a couple of days to see if anyone else has an opinion, and if nobody steps up we'll try WP:3O. Vashti (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
A mere two academic papers that don't treat the items as proper nouns should not speak for all academic writing, particularly when public opinion and official material suggest otherwise and Japan Focus has no known impact factor to see how much it is affecting the field of Japanese studies.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Wikipedia does not privilege public opinion over sources. There are plenty of other sources (I found three before deciding I wouldn't keep on editing before it became necessary); we're not talking about just two. Vashti (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:TM say otherwise.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Terms in fiction are not trademarks, and as you said in one of your original comments, "the whims of a fandom that never bothered to check" are not binding on Wikipedia. Vashti (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you guys are talking about the use of the phrase "death note" in the running text, and not the article title, right? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The series title, Death Note, is not in question. But the series contains several items *called* "death notes", and there is some debate over how to capitalise those. Vashti (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. How to refer to the eponymous item in prose is at question. Also, Vashti, this is the first time I've encountered that the fandom matches official formatting. I've been on the other end of so many other instances of seeing something in English appear in a Japanese TV show only for the fans to ignore it in favor of what they think is the right way of writing it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Also I'm fairly certain "Death Note" was trademarked, there are two entries here (put the katakana in the search field).—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the source material, but if it's a unique entity: i.e. the Death Note rather than a death note, then I'd say it's a proper name. Although, even if it is one of many death notes, a case could still be made for a proper name. See Todd and the Book of Pure Evil: The "Book of Pure Evil" is a unique entity, and thus a proper name. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, death notes are by no means unique in-universe - every shinigami has one, and there are several in play amongst the human characters by the end of the story. I'd still want to appeal to academic precedent, though, where the name of the notebook is not capitalised. "Shinigami", on the other hand, is a reasonably common loanword and capitalising it seems to be a unique translation quirk. Vashti (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I think a case could still be made for a proper name if each has unique properties, etc. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Per our own article, shinigami seems to be a common noun. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Learn something every day. :) I had no idea there was an article for that. The death notes (besides external decoration, like writing names on the cover), are all identical and work identically. They are definitely a class of item, rather than a unique item. Vashti (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there are more than one items known デスノート in the work of fiction, even though much of the focus is on the protagonist's one. But I still don't see how the fact that there is more than one of the eponymous item determines whether or not it's a proper noun. We should really look within the context of the series. The Japanese concept of shinigami is merely an archetype for the ones in popular fiction that are radically different, such as the "Soul Reapers" of Bleach or whatever Botan was in YuYu Hakusho. The fact that the English translation did not change it gives more credence that it should be treated differently.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I know it's WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I was trying to think of similar items and how we dealt with them - Horcrux and Rings of Power came to mind. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The notebooks, I should also say, are all issued from a central source - they're produced and distributed as required. I don't think, though, that we really need to dig into the context of the series that deeply. The question is whether a popular primary source that's so heavily capitalised it reads like German outweighs a more sedately written and academic secondary source. What is our aim for Wikipedia? Is there a house style? The thing about Harry Potter and Tolkien's works, too, is that they had the advantage of being written in English. There are *no* capitals in the original DN work, except for the OMINOUSLY CAPITALISED name of the DEATH NOTE. Vashti (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
By "written in English", I mean that since we have the author's diktat on how those names should be capitalised, there is no real debate. Vashti (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why we don't treat these small handful of terms as proper nouns though.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Because these are *not* a small handful of terms - look at the samples I cited further up. You can't write coherently about DN without using them constantly, and frequent and gratuitous capitalisation is not formal English. Comic books don't have to be written in formal English. For peer-reviewed material (or encyclopaedic text), it's a requirement. Vashti (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
It is formal English if you consider the words proper nouns.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I've made my case for why I don't think they're proper nouns at all. "Shinigami" is established as a common noun (thanks, Robsinden), and the death note itself is a generic item. Plenty of sources follow this. Vashti (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Common in Japanese but not in English and certainly not within the context of the program. And it is not a "generic item". Simply because there is more than one of them within the work of fiction does not detract from its uniqueness and therefore its status as a proper noun.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
No; it's common in English, per shinigami and a multitude of sources in which it is never capitalised. Vashti (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
All instances in the article are simply transliterating the Japanese text rather than presenting it as an English loan word. And on top of that, the usage within Death Note is not the same as the usage within normal spoken Japanese.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
P.S., you might want to double-check what a common noun is. It has nothing to do with word frequency. Vashti (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I still do not see how "デスノート", "死神", or "死神の目" would meet those requirements when written in the English alphabet.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not spending all of today making circular arguments. I'll summarise my case, and if Ryulong wants to do the same we can seek some more opinions.

Case that nouns capitalised in Death Note primary sources should not be capitalised on Wikipedia

  • "Shinigami" is usually treated as a common noun in English translation, and capitalising it appears to be a Viz Media house style issue.
  • The term "death note" refers to a group of items that, while rare and powerful, are interchangeable, identical, and manufactured at will by their source.
  • The original Japanese features no capital letters except for capitalising the English term DEATH NOTE (which is standard usage for romaji loanwords).
    • The official manga translation is in all caps, per comic book style.
    • The only source for the capitalised terms is the official manga guidebook; see my comments above about Viz house style. Regardless, this is a popular work aimed at fans. It is neither scholarly nor encyclopaedic. Excerpt: "The person who borrows the Death Note will not be followed by a Shinigami. The Shinigami always remains with the owner of the Death Note. Also, the borrower cannot trade for the Shinigami Eyes."
    • Peer-reviewed sources (examples [3] [4]) tend not to capitalise any of these terms. Alternatively, they capitalise "Death Note" but never "shinigami". Excerpt: "The shinigami Rem brought a second death note to the human world and gave it to Misa to use as she pleases. ... To protect herself, she relinquishes ownership of her death note, losing all memories of the death note and her shinigami eyes."
  • Summary: Too many capital letters are considered silly and lead to rather frenetic-reading prose. Wikipedia is not a fan work, but an encyclopaedia, and should aim for an academic writing style. Vashti (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Case that nouns should be capitalized on Wikipedia

  • These are unique items to the work of fiction, and similar subjects are treated as proper nouns on Wikipedia, such as Horcrux and Ring of Power. So simply because there is more than one デスノート in the work of fiction does not mean it is relegated to common noun status.
  • The existence of the word 死神 in the work of fiction should not be treated as a common noun because the application is unique to Death Note despite the phrase being common in Japan.

It's normal for works of fiction to be written this way on Wikipedia and elsewhere. The sheer small number of academic papers that for whatever reason do discuss this work of fiction should not be taken to represent everything there is about it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion continues

Okay, dispute resolution is opened. If nobody there wants to help out I might just put my feet up and eat ice cream for a while. >.> Vashti (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why it had to come to that but whatever.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Request move - informed help required

There is a requested move in progress proposing moving the names of some Royal Navy ship types to lower case titles. If you understand what constitutes a proper noun, and the Wikipedia guidelines on capitalisation, please wade in at the RMs for:

Opinions on either side much appreciated. Shem (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

"Family" names

Would it be "Smith family" or "Smith Family"? Same question for "dynasty". Primergrey (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the MoS says anything specific. To see what the current status is, I did search for the word family in article titles. That gives a pretty consistent use of lower case unless the X Family has become an organization name. The same search for dynasty shows a mix. Chinese and other east Asian dynasties seem to be upper case and others are generally lower case. I think it may be that when dynasty refers to a historical period as well as a family, it's upper case, but otherwise lower case. SchreiberBike talk 23:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I've found the exact same thing, it seems to me, though, that dynasty and family are essentially the same thing so I guess your proposal makes sense to only capitalize when part of an "era". Thx Primergrey (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Mistake in correct titles

A lot of examples in this project page list a correct title as not capitalizing words for emphasis but they also make a huge mistake of listing a title that starts with a small letter as a correct title. Blackbombchu (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Your comment is not sensible. If you wish to bring our attention some kind of possible problem the Manual of Style ("MOS") you need to point us to an instance of the problem, preferably using a wikilink. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Composition titles again

Today I learned with surprise that our MOS does not write the title of a composition as the printed piece does. It doesn't make sense to me to have Nocturnal After John Dowland if the title page says Nocturnal after John Dowland and WorldCat has the same, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The piece is titled with a lower-case 'a', and the article title should match that. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
We don't follow external styling, we have a house MOS which should be followed, as "formality and an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility". WP:TITLEFORMAT, which is policy, defers us to WP:NCCAPS, which states "English titles of books, films, and other works takes an initial capital, except for articles ("a", "an", "the"), the word "to" as part of an infinitive, prepositions and coordinating conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., "on", "from", "and", "with"), unless they begin or end a title or subtitle." This then goes on to defer us to MOS:CT, which is very clear on the issue. Basically, not capitalising "after" goes against policy. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
It's misleading to refer to a title such as "Nocturnal after John Dowland" as having 'styling'. It's just normal English usage. And it's the name that the composer and the publisher chose for it. We should respect that, and not pedantically go imposing an arbitrary rule about capitalising prepositions of a certain length. That WP guideline would only apply if there were any reasonable doubt about the intentions of the composer - and there is not. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with the MOS requiring a reasonable titlecase. It is reasonable to reject printed-piece styles like ALLCAPS. Where the MOS forces stupidity in folling the letter of an arbitrary rule is the inflexibility on capitalization of prepositions, like "after". On this point policy is an ass. I submit that the preposition policy was invented from arbitrariness, and that it has never been demonstrated to be supported by consensus. If you look around and see that the rule is generally followed, that would be because (1) ordinary editors have trusted the rule, trusting that the decision was properly made; or (2) rule-loving editors have been imposing the rule.

    The rule on prepositions creates problems both ways. The rule gets tossed whenever the subject is interesting enough to attack more than the handful of editors needed to outshout the preposition-rule-lovers. It would be better to encouraging looking to sources on the question of capitalization of prepositions. Wikipedia's credibility does not depend on adhering to arbitrary preposition capitalization rules. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The point regarding our credibility is important if you consider the titles in a list where they can be compared. Imagine a list that has a jumbled style, for example:
  • Burn After Reading
  • Nocturnal after John Dowland
Were the list to be extended, you can see how unprofessional not following the same style makes us look, and shows the intention behind a consistent internal style. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I think your use of "unprofessional" is exaggeration and that "inconsistent" is more accurate. I like consistency, but it seems to be too far to carry it to prepositions. Some prepositions seem more important than others, and capitalisation in title case is read as denoting the important words. The 4/5 letter split is an approximation at deciding which are important, but it is so often wrong. This getting it wrong, I submit, is more unprofessional than preposition capitalisation inconsistency that requires a listing to notice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
We take our lead from one of the other style manuals (Chicago, I believe) on this issue. It's not "getting it wrong", that's simply your opinion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  Whether propositions are capitalized (or not) is arbitrary in the same sense that driving on either the right-side or left-side of the road is arbitrary: either way can work quite well, but consistency in any location is more important than which way. And even though matters of capitalization probably won't result in fatalities, consistency does matter because it does touch on credibility. It goes to the heart of how citations are arranged and formatted, so they can be clearly and succinctly displayed. (Surely no one wants: The title of this book is ..., the author is ..., etc.) Such inconsistencies do not require a listing to notice.
  There is no element of "getting it wrong" or respecting the author (composer) in these matters, because they are set by the publishers; "respecting" different styles in a bibliography leads to a confusing mess. Respecting consistency in a given bibliography (and across Wikipedia) shows that we respect the established professional (and scholarly) standard of consistency (no matter which side we drive on), and, ultimately, the user. Whether we can adhere (or not!) to any standard, no matter how arbitrary, goes straight to our credibility. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
If consistency is everything, then why are there prominent examples where the community has decided to capitalize a 4 letter proposition? I agree with you in respect to styles within a bibliography, but different articles are not in the same bibliography. Is there a Wikipedia guideline on styling within bibliographies somewhere else? I didn't think this was it. "Adhering to a standard speaks to credibility" sounds like bureaucratium, disconnected from reality, and nonsense. Credibility comes from reliability and relevance, not from a veneer of consistency. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
It's true, a good solution might be to fix those. I don't know what you mean by "disconnected from reality, and nonsense" – making extreme charges like that doesn't automatically make your argument strong. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Mere consistency may make it look professional, and looking professional may make it look credible, this this is superficiality. I am astounded to find people asserting equivalence between "consistency" and "credibility". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh; sure. Compared to getting good sources/etc, this is indeed a superficiality. I think the point about credibility is that people do take a work more seriously if some care has been given in its preparation. A consistent style is a part of that. To me this is important because I think if people think of Wikipedia as serious/legitimate/credible/etc, they'll be more likely to contribute and make it better. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. It's the same thing with correct spelling: it demonstrates competency and care which tends to correlate with deeper aspects of an article. It does not guarantee reliability, etc., but an editor that can't be bothered to spell correctly, or to be consistent, likely is not taking much care in the rest of his work. This is hardly astonishing. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
On spelling, we have WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN. We don't havea Wikipedia wide dictionary. Do ENGVAR and RETAIN practices hurt the credibility of Wikipedia?

On content, we have few core policies that are barely negotiable.

Nearly everything else covering content is guideline "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions". MOS style guidelines, are enforced "per the MOS", until enough MOS non-regulars get involved.

The arguments presented here for consistency are contrary to "will have occasional exceptions".

Why does it matter? Because enforcement of MOSCT regular upsets content contributors.

This is a hostile environment for these opinions. Regulars here are bias towards format aficionados. Format aficionados have a preference for the more complicated styles (I notice). Why choose what seems to be one of the most complicated, The Chicago Manual of Style? No one dares attempt to quote it. This rule, that Wikipedia follows the CMOS, which no one can explain, is an access barrier to the ordinary contributor, and for that reason is bad for Wikipedia.

At Star Trek Into Darkness, my reading of the MOSCT-er, pro-lowercase i argument is that because they cannot find a rule supporting an uppercase I, it must default to the most applicable rule, which would make it lowercase. It doesn't matter how many source-based, other reference work, or other arguments are presented, the MOSTCT is the rule. The inability to follow sources, or to discuss on case-by-case merits, or to be open to occasional exceptions made Wikipedia look stupid (not my opinion, see the "This talk page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations" box at the top of the talk page).

Apparent MOSTCT aficionados seem unable to rationalize He's Just Not That Into You. They don't care that Journey Through the Decade means no different to "Decadal Journey" and that "through" is an unimportant word. They just care what MOSCT says.

A rule that encourages discussion by editors already interested in the topic, that empowers ordinary contributors to make decisions, that does not smell of a self-appointed rules committee edict, is better for a project always trying to attract contributors. Such a rule is: Capitalize the first word of the title, the last word of the title, and all principal words. Deciding on what are principal words means some depth of understanding of context, and it is not amendable to algorithm.

At a minimum, I propose stripping MOSCT of instructions on capitalizing prepositions, on the basis that what it says is a bad idea, that it does not have consensus, that it never had consensus, and that it is frequently overruled in cases where significant numbers of editors get involved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your last paragraph (I lack time and interest to read the others) it is as another editor said: that's simply your opinion. I don't see that you have supported any of your assertions (belly aches?), and I don't have the time to help you clarify them. So a simple response: however imperfect and inadequate the MOS is in regard of title case, unless and until you can demonstrate a better case I oppose your proposal. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
"To be into" is a phrasal verb, and thus "into" should be capitalised in the context of He's Just Not That Into You. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure is quite right, that "into" is a phrasal verb. It is a single word. I don't think it means "in to". The phrasal unit, if anything, is "into you". I think "into" here is an adjective, meaning enamoured (or interested or similar http://thesaurus.com/browse/enamoured). The fun of post-rationalization. Much language, like this use of "into", is created by teenage girls with no formal reference to linguistics. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

A Boy was Born

We start over, see talk of that article. My view: the published name is the common name under which the piece is best known. There may be reasons to deviate from it , for example if the published name has all caps, but not here. I think we look professional if we call a piece by its common name, and sloppy if we differ in one character. I don't believe that our readers are familiar with the MOS rules cited above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You err in your opinions (can you cite any authority?) that article and book titles are fixed in capitalization (case), and that references should (says who?) follow the original sources rather than be consistent within an article. We have settled policy regarding titles, which follows widely accepted standards. That you don't like it is not an adequate basis for changing it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Can we please distinguish article title and references? I would use one consistent name in the article. - I am ready to learn if something makes sense, but if a composition has a common name, is doesn't make any sense to me not to use it. I learned about the holiness of the common name in the move request of The Flying Dutchman (opera). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, excellent point. I have presumed that your use of composition is in accord with the topic of Composition titles (referring to "books and other print works, songs", etc.), what you have also called "piece". I have been using "article" in the sense of periodicals, NOT as Wikipedia articles. (My apologies if that was not clear.) I mention references (i.e., citations) because that is where the titles of pieces are most likely to be located. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I understand you better, I think, thanks for clarifying. We are talking about articles on one composition, or one novel. As expressed on the talk of the article A Boy was Born, in case of a published work I wish to have the option to represent the title (as article name and in the text of the article) in the style of the published version, because I think it's confusing for readers to see a picture of a book cover one style, but the article name a different style, or to read in a referenced book one style, but in our article a different style. What can we do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
What is confusing for readers (and editors) is when we don't follow our house style, and capitalise "was" in one composition title but not in another similarly structured title. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
A reader is first of all within one article, why confuse him there? We carefully preserve French and German titles as published, why not have at least the option to do the same in English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we wish to have consistency (anyone not agreeable to that?). But in which context? We have multiple usages to consider: as the title of a Wikipedia article, within the article text (and tables, etc.), and as a bibliographic citation. In matters of citation we have no "house style", and ask only for consistency within an article. At the level of WP:article titles we do have a house style. It does not address how much variation (inconsistency!) in capitalization is allowed for "actual" names (presuming that the vaguaries of publication have not muddled matters), but the policy at MOS:CT seems pretty clear: do it our way. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
When it comes to established titles, "house style" is nonsense, as the persistent complaints on this little-known page show. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful and constructive input to this discussion - calling our MoS "nonsense". I trust that you do follow our MoS for other things, no? As for "little known", bear in mind that WP:NCCAPS is mentioned on WP:AT (under WP:TITLEFORMAT), our policy for how we name and style our articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I suggest we better change the MOS than ask the reader - who will hopefully have one window open for the article, one for a good source - why "we" spell an established title not as that source. He must think we can't copy. I don't see that reader compare to "God Save the Queen". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
You won't have any luck with that. All English-language style guides would capitalise a verb in a composition title, so we should too. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
But the composer/publisher of this chose not to, and we should respect this. We don't follow this (I repeat) nonsense for pop culture or even Modernist titles. Johnbod (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Can you provide a source that this was a conscious stylistic decision not to capitalise? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
So when a publisher chooses to title a book as An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations you would not allow us (following just about everyone else in the world) to refer to it as The Wealth of Nations? Or On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life as On the Origin of Species? (Which the publisher himself did for a later edition.) And of course, all of these have the title as all-capitals; do you really insist on the original ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION, OR: THE PRESERVATION OF FAVORED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE? Isn't such slavish adherence to the exact original format rather absurd, and hard to read? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Are you talking to me? "Allow"? - I am in no position to allow, and if I was I would not use it. I don't want to limit but to expand, wishing to have at least the option to write a title as published, unrestricted by house style. In the case of "A Boy was Born", the publication was during the composer's lifetime and likely his preference. No, I don't have a ref for that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
We should just follow WP:COMMONNAME, rather try to invent our own versions. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
There's no question of the WP:COMMONNAME, it's the WP:TITLEFORMAT that is being discussed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
That's a wholly artificial distinction, unsanctioned by policy. WP:TITLEFORMAT actually begins "The following points are used in deciding on questions not covered by the five principles; consistency on these helps avoid duplicate articles:..." There's nothing there about deliberately overriding WP:COMMONNAME. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
One of the five WP:CRITERIA is consistency, which is covered at WP:TITLEFORMAT, which makes up an important part of this criteria. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
It won't be long before we get a move request from Measure for Measure to "MEASVRE, For Meaſure". --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, ha, ha, please don't be pathetic, either of you. We should follow modern editions, ie WP:COMMONNAME, which covers these matters also. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, the WP:COMMONNAME in this example is "measure for measure" either way, they are just styled differently. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
No, the WP:COMMONNAME is Measure for Measure, including "styling". Where does WP:COMMONNAME says that it doesn't cover styling? That only comes in this obscure corner, which the community generally is unaware of. This page should only come into play for titles when the WP:COMMONNAME form as regards styling is unclear, and it should say so. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Styling is not mentioned at all in WP:COMMONNAME, as this is covered further down the WP:AT page, at the WP:TITLEFORMAT section. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

To get back to the question of how much liberty can be taken with capitalization of titles, the following from CMS-13 seems pertinent in regard of generally accepted practice:

Compiling a bibliography raises questions of how much editing may be done to the title of a printed work in applying rules of style. Because capitalization, punctuation, and the use of italics on a title page are generally matters determined by the publisher rather than the author, scholars agree that these may be changed within limits, but that the author's spelling must not be altered. — CMS-13, §16.31: "Titles"

I don't see that a good case has been made for being more restrictive on WP. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization of "And Yet The Town Moves"

Hello,

I was wondering if somebody could help me out with this one (I'm not a native English speaker). What would you say the proper capitalization of this title is?

It seems to me it should be "And yet the Town Moves", as the "yet" is (I believe?) used as a conjunction, and "the" isn't the first word of the title. Would that be correct? And if so, should the page be moved (I'm not entirely clear about that process either)? Erigu (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I would say that yet is an adverb here (and is the conjunction), so that the capitalization called for by the Manual of Style is And Yet the Town Moves. Deor (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah, so the "yet" would actually be an adverb, and we'd have something similar to the 8th example there? "though the case be such; nevertheless: strange and yet very true."?
Interesting. Thank you for the clarification! Erigu (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. I see that you've successfully moved the article, which should be fine. In the unlikely event that someone objects to the move, you should initiate a move request on the article's talk page, following the instructions at WP:RM#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. Deor (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I concur about the adverbial function in that context and therefore the capitalization.
Doc.  DocRushing (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you again for your help! Erigu (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Template help

If there's anyone out there with the know-how to edit templates, I have been given the green light to fiddle with the "tennis draw" template to get rid of the title case in the column headers (a pet peeve). I've never actually gotten through to the template people before and I'm stoked to see it changed but could use some help with the implementation. Hit me on my tp.Primergrey (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

If there was a Template:Tennis draw you could just navigate there and edit it like any other page to fix the capitalization. But since you didn't say what template you mean it's hard to help. Dicklyon (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The curious case of Remember not, Lord, our offences

Consider the following:

  • Henry Purcell wrote the anthem circa 1679-1682 using the title as formatted above.
  • The source text, the Great Litany written in the 1540s by Cranmer that Purcell set includes the phrase as formatted above.
  • Subsequent editions of the Book of Common Prayer since Cranmer use the formatting above.
  • It's included in two contemporary manuscript collections use the title as formatted above.
  • All but two of the many published scores of it from 1800-present use the title as formatted above.
  • Usage in the Anglican church where it most often performed uses the title as formatted above
  • Musicologists and historians use the title as formatted above.
  • One user Robsniden insists that WP:NCCAPS, WP:ARTICLETITLE, MOS:CT we ignore the last 330 years of formatting and capitalise it as Remember Not, Lord, Our Offences.
  • Despite inconsistencies in article title guidelines and being told what I've said above, Robsniden employs WP:IDHT and insists upon capitalising it as Remember Not, Lord, Our Offences.

Thanks MOS, inconsistent and promoting inaccuracy yet again. Befehl ist Befehl.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the question might be: Who do we want to look slightly stupid to? The article and its title could match hundreds of years of usage, or it could match all the other works in Wikipedia. No one will have trouble identifying it either way. The people who are familiar with the work in partial caps might see it capitalized in our style and think that must be the way it is done in Wikipedia. Alternatively, people seeing the work in Purcell's idiosyncratic style would think there must be something different about this work from all the others in Wikipedia. I don't have strong feelings, but generally I favor following Wikipedia's style in Wikipedia. Many songs, bands, companies, etc. capitalize in odd ways and usually we follow our standard style. SchreiberBike talk 20:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • So your argument is essentially "stick to the standard style, even if it's wrong". Hey, because it's our arbitrary standard and at Wikipedia we can ignore the facts as long as we follow MOS. Calling Purcell's style "idiosyncratic" is ridiculous given that almost every composer setting liturgical texts follows the same idiosyncratic style. Wikipedia's style is idiosyncratic. Get it right. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • No my argument is that both ways are wrong. One wrong compared with the traditional style in the specialist literature you refer to above, and one wrong compared to Wikipedia's standard for a general encyclopedia. SchreiberBike talk 19:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, a composer writes a piece, titles it, and we get to disregard it because it's "specialist literature". Ridiculous. If the standard promotes a ridiculous outcome or the insistence upon inaccuracy, then per WP:IAR, we ignore that standard (we too often forget the MOS is just a guideline...per the five pillars, it's not set in stone). Otherwise, to insist on following a standard just because it's the standard makes it the Wikipedia corollary to the Nuremberg Defence...ignore the facts, it's the MOS!--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Traditionally, titles of works have (in English) been treated as recommended in our MOS. However, some poems and such don't really have titles per se, so they are referred to by their first lines, and such references have traditionally used sentence-style capitalization (for example, "Fear no more the heat o' the sun" from Shakespeare's Cymbeline or Emily Dickinson's "'Hope' is the thing with feathers"). The passage from the litany is a member of the second class, but it's a nice question whether in being used as the name of Purcell's work it becomes a title, requiring title-style capitalization, or remains a first-line reference, with sentence-style capitalization being acceptable. Deor (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • @Deor: - I think in these instances, we should treat it as an incipit...the first line...since the heritage of sacred anthems in the Anglican tradition tends to follow that of the Roman church by referring to sections of liturgy, passages of scripture, or canticles by its incipit. The Latin equivalent of this text is Ne reminiscaris Domine delicta nostra from a penitential antiphon--and in the Catholic tradition no one would ever capitalise reminiscaris, delicta or nostra. Cranmer in preparing the lyrics in the Litany just did a verbatim translation, and as part of the litany (Purcell set anthems for most of the versicles of the litany) not as separate titles.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • We should defer to usage in the most reliable sources. Trying to best most other works in Wikipedia is original research, especially and certainly where there is any implication to meaning. Other publishers are not bound by WP:NOR, but we are, we must always be led by our sources. If questions of capitalization are not just of style, then we must defer to sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I am sympathetic to the idea that Wikipedia can be more nuanced in matters of style than it is at the moment - and the example of sentence-style capitalisation for first-line references is an excellent one. Thank you, Deor. I strongly disagree with SmokeyJoe, though, since WP:NOR is about "facts, allegations, and ideas", not style. No other publication would feel constrained to throw again its own style guide just because one or another of its sources used a different style - why should we? Wikipedia:Specialist style fallacy makes a good read on the false assumptions behind deferring to style in works that have authority for facts. Shem (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • @Shem1805: - While a well written "ESSAY", Wikipedia:Specialist style fallacy, it doesn't apply here when the question is accuracy. The discussion on Wikipediocracy indicates that the essay was written because of the petulance of chess people saying "we render it this way"...This isn't one of those petty debates of whether we capitalize chess moves or "White and Black". When it comes to the titles of work, we're either right (as 330 years of history and reliable sources consistently should indicate), or we're wrong. Apparently here, a composer can name his piece one way but a Wikipedia editor claiming that essay and MOS can shoot it down saying "MOS!" despite inaccuracy. Just mentioning the essay as a thought-terminating cliché contributes to the WP:IDHT mentality of one side of the tendentious editing that the essay seeks to avoid, and is a conveniently facile excuse of Wikipedia to double down on being wrong. It's like calling someone a "racist" because they disagree, or automatically shouting down someone for "ownership". Argue the facts, not WP:IDHT clichés.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • An extra bullet in MOS:CT might be enough. What do you think of this:
"In the Middle Ages, literary works didn't have a title, and their first sentence is used to refer to them. In those cases, sentence capitalization should be used:
Incorrect  (not an actual title):    Remember Not, Lord, Our Offences
Correct:   Remember not, Lord, our offences
  • If this is how other style guides, such as the CMOS, treat these sorts of "titles" (although JJ's excerpt in the section above may suggest otherwise), then we can also make a provision for sentence case in our style guide also for poems and the like, but we should not be adopting something into our style guide that is not reflected elsewhere. However, Deor makes the point above that in this case, the "title" could be just the title (and thus should be in title case anyway), so by allowing this, would we end up with greater confusion and inconsistency? Also, I would like to make the point, that typographical conventions have changed somewhat since the 17th century, so we should never follow original formatting for the sake of it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Whether typography has changed or not, the article you insisted upon changing (with all that WP:IDHT rhetoric), has been titled the same way since the 1540s, and earlier uncapitalized in the Latin text that Cranmer translated. Editors generally keep William Blake's unique typography, and should also for poems by e.e. cummings--since bring it into conformity with an arbitrary "one size fits all" standard would destroy the accuracy of the work and the presentation of that work. You used the example of Shakespeare's MEASURE for Meafure in the first folio--the original has changed with the times, so per WP:UCN, it is justifiable to stick with "Measure for Measure". Other titles haven't changed, others never needed to be changed. A strict adherence to the letter of MOS:CT doesn't address those nuances or that history, or relevant coverage in sources, and such strict adherence is not accurate in all cases. Wielding MOS like a executioner's ax usually results in getting it wrong, especially since CMOS wisely has weighed in on the matter (see comments below) and defers to history, form, and other nuances that assertiveness tends to ignore (hey, WP:IDHT). --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Chicago Manual of Style in the section on Poems referred to by first line says "Poems referred to by first line rather than by title are capitalized sentence-style, even if the first word is lowerecased in the original, but any words capitalized in the original should remain capitalized." The section on titles of musical works says they are "capitalized in the same way as poems". I would support changing the MoS to reflect that. SchreiberBike talk 18:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Support. This seems to be nearly universal styling and common sense, apparently a mere oversight in the MOS. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) I'd word it as something more inclusive, though, maybe "Works known by their first line as they lack a separate title, including many poems, anthems, and some medieval works." Or SmokeyJoe's wording above. — kwami (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • You seem to be disagreeing with something not said. If it is just a question of style, then follow our style guide. If following our style guide changes meaning, then go back to sources. WP:NOR is all about: We don't create, we reflect the sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Yep, it should definitely be rendered as "Remember not, Lord, our offences". Typographical conventions have indeed changed since the 17th century, but this is not an example of such a case. To follow the MOS where it clearly creates an inaccurate title is absurd. I had a similar situation myself on two William Blake articles where a user moved them from their current titles to "MOS correct" titles despite the fact that all Blake articles consistently use his exact style, as do all modern editions of his work and all critical literature. As a lecturer in English literature myself, I think it looks extremely bad for the project as a whole to have inaccurately formatted titles, especially if for no reason other than "the MOS says so" or WP:THIS/WP:THAT. I think SmokeyJoe's suggested addendum is on the money. Bertaut (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional question: If CMOS, as quoted in a section above, states that "the author's spelling must not be altered." (CMS-13, §16.31: "Titles")....can we get an additional addendum that the title of an article regarding a composition, song, poem, book, or other titled work should reflect the style/spelling/format as chosen or used by the composer/songwriter/poet/author provided we can show per WP:UCN and WP:V with reliable sources that the title rendering is/was the intended title provided by the work's creator?--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd say no. Spelling is critical in indexing and when searching, whereas formatting is trivial. Similarly, we don't need to place line breaks at the same place as in the original, we use colons for subtitles even when they appear as a second line in the original, we don't worry about local variants of quotation marks, etc. — kwami (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm referring to things like A Boy was Born where the composer's title (shown in an image on the article) is disregarded because of insistence on MOS compliance. Formatting might be "trivial" to some, but inaccurate to others. If it's inaccurate and reliable sources indicate it is, why should it persist just because of an MOS issue?--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd be more sympathetic if it were a case where the author purposefully violated stylistic norms for artistic purposes, as at E. E. Cummings#Books. If it's merely a matter of an author following a different style guide than we do, then the difference is no more significant than if they chose to write in blue ink. Few 2ary sources maintain the original style; rather, most reformat to match their house style. Assuming there even is a single original: A work may be published more than once, each time with slightly different styling, and the author themself might be inconsistent. — kwami (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I can see your point. But if the reliable sources say X, or a majority of sources say X...who are we to insist on Y just because of an internal Wikipedia guideline? In the case of the title of "A Boy was Born"...90% of the sources used in the article (a comprehensive survey of available lit on the subject) say "was", not "Was". The creator says "was", and his creative rights/legacy foundation says "was", and most of the published versions say "was". Who are we to insist on "Was"? And where does one editor get off insisting on "Was" when the people who contribute to the article respond..."hey, wait...take a look at the sources" and they respond "No, MOS...therefore "Was". Sure, someone can argue WP:SSF, but Wikipedia is built on WP:V and the sources that support the article content. WP:SSF = WP:IDHT. --ColonelHenry (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Blake orthography issue

  • @Bertaut: - Do you see the need for a bullet point to address a situation, as with Blake, where if an author/composer's original and unique orthography/typography is unamended from the original to preserve the nature of the origina?

Draft proposals

I've taken the license to prepare some proposed verbiage based on the above into a draft for a bullet point on the two questions asked above to be inserted upon approval. Vote below.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

QUESTION 1: (regarding "Remember not, Lord our offences")

PROPOSED TEXT: "Works known by their first line as they lack a separate title, including many poems, anthems, some musical works, and some medieval works, are capitalized sentence-style, even if the first word is lowerecased in the original, but any words capitalized in the original should remain capitalized.

Incorrect  (not an actual title):    Remember Not, Lord, Our Offences
Correct:   Remember not, Lord, our offences

QUESTION 2: (regarding "A Boy was Born")

PROPOSED TEXT: "If a original title of a work given by an author or composer includes words is lowercased and such rendering is supported by a majority of reliable sources, including subsequent and/or current editions of the work, we defer to the title as rendered by the author or composer."

Incorrect    A Boy Was Born
Correct:   A Boy was Born

General discussion

At least two errors pop out from the above, even during a casual glance.
First, check this line: "QUESTION 1: (regarding 'Remember not, Lord our offences')." A required comma, after Lord as a word or name of address, has slipped away.
Second, check this fragment: "PROPOSED TEXT: 'If a original title ....'" Can we agree that the correct nonspecific article in this context is an, not a?
We're all human, imperfect, and subject to errors; however, it still appears somewhat amusing that such errors appear in the work of those who squabble among themselves while trying to decide what they should require the rest of us to do.
Now please consider these morsels for thought:
Capitalization, spelling, punctuation, and syntax in general have changed in English over the past several hundred years; they all have become less casual, more formal, and more prescribed and formulary.
Why then do we feel a need to repeat and continue to repeat old expressions which do not conform to our contemporary practices?
Is there value in preserving what now appear to be mistakes?
Further, when a piece of literary work, such as a hymn or poem, originally lacks a title, and if that piece has become known by its first line, has that first line not become in effect its title?
If that is true, is it not OK to regard it as the title and to capitalize it as the title, using our contemporary principles of capitalization?
Or do we somehow prefer to "honor" an old form by continuing to repeat it even though it appears to be incorrect according to our modern principles?
By intent I do not here take a position on any of those questions, so please do not try to quarrel or quibble with me; instead I pose the above as rhetorical questions to stimulate conversation.
Best wishes to all,
Doc. DocRushing (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's clear that people wish to consider these proposals separately. I have therefore refactored the !votes onto the following two sections. I trust I have done so fairly and accurately; please check. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

May we please get some constructive open-minded discussion about this line of thinking (below)?
When a piece of literary work, such as a hymn or poem, originally lacks a title, and if that piece has become known by its first line, has that first line not become in effect its title?
If that is true, is it not OK to regard it as the title and to capitalize it as the title, using our contemporary principles of capitalization?
Or do we somehow prefer to "honor" an old form by continuing to repeat it even though it appears to be incorrect according to our modern principles?
Again, please:  Does the first line (or a part of it) not become the title, and is it not appropriate to treat it (capitalize it) as a title?
Doc.  DocRushing (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Q1 First line as title

Do we have a citation from an established style guide that can back this method up? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the concept but propose new language.

    Works without a separate title, which are capitalized in reliable sources by their first line in sentence case should be capitalized in sentence case.

I think this makes it clear that in this case titles should be in sentence case even if reliable sources use idiosyncratic capitalization, and I specify that they should be referred to that way in reliable sources because I just saw a commonly used church liturgy book which referred to songs by their first line capitalized in title case. Please feel free to propose improvements to the text above.SchreiberBike talk 17:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • 'Support - as I made clear near the beginning of this discussion. I like SchreiberBike's proposal, but I find it slightly convoluted, and is therefore possibly ambiguous. How about

    If a work has no title and uses the first line instead, and if this first line is capitalized in reliable sources in sentence case, then the Wikipedia article title should also be capitalized in sentence case.

Clearly this would then be supported by some well chosen examples. Shem (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
No. A string of text as a title is NOT the same thing as the identical string of text as a first line. If a first line gets promoted to the status of a title then it becomes subject to the conventions applicable to titles. Same as using any other text from within the work. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
So, you are not bothered to see Wikipedia use a title styled at odds with every reliable source, and at odds with the CMOS? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
It specifically says "if it has no title". If it has no title, IMO there is no reason to use title case. I'd drop the middle clause, though: If a work has no title and so uses the first line instead, [...] then the Wikipedia article title should also be capitalized in sentence case. (Or just should use sentence case.) — kwami (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
If a piece of literary work (such as a poem, hymn, or other song) originally had no title, and if that piece has become known by its first line (or a part of it), then have those words not in effect become the title of the work?
If that is true, is it not appropriate to treat that first line or part of it (that is, capitalize it) as a title?
It appears to me that such works have acquired titles by common usage, so why should we refuse to regard and treat those after-acquired titles as titles?
Is that not a fair and reasonable application of common sense and good judgment?
Best wishes to all,
Doc.  DocRushing (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC).
You could certainly argue that, and in a limited sense you're correct. But when listing unnamed poems in a TOC or index, they're listed by their first lines, and they are capitalized as they are in the poems, not as if they were titles. This is a very common convention, and when people quote the lines they are listed under, they generally retain the convention. It's a bit like saying "the song that goes X [giving the chorus]" when you don't know the actual name of the song. It also clarifies to the reader that the poem/etc. was not given a name by its author. — kwami (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks like we have consensus on this. What about the wording? We have four proposals. Shall we try deciding on one? (Personally, I'd choose any of these over none, but #4 is my attempt.) — kwami (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

1)

Works known by their first line as they lack a separate title, including many poems, anthems, some musical works, and some medieval works, are capitalized sentence-style, even if the first word is lowerecased in the original, but any words capitalized in the original should remain capitalized.

2)

Works without a separate title, which are capitalized in reliable sources by their first line in sentence case should be capitalized in sentence case.

3)

If a work has no title and uses the first line instead, and if this first line is capitalized in reliable sources in sentence case, then the Wikipedia article title should also be capitalized in sentence case.

4)

If a work has no title and is known instead by its first line, then the Wikipedia article title should be that line in sentence case.

Kwamikagami - I'd say combine the best elements of the four and cite the example, since no one has objected to the substance of the theory/intentions behind any of them of them and they seem to go to the same place. I've combined elements of 1 (because of the parenthetical example) and 4 (because of the clear statement of "sentence case") for this proposed text (and added the word "rendered").--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

  1. If a work in English is known by its first line of text as it lacks a separate title (including many poems, anthems, and some musical works) then the Wikipedia article title should be that first line rendered in sentence case.
This applies to any use of a title, for instance in referring to a specific poem in an article about the poet, so I don't think we should say that this is just about the "Wikipedia article title". Also, to keep it as concise as possible, I don't think the part in parentheses is necessary. How does this sound?

If a work is known by its first line of text, and lacks a separate title, then the the first line, rendered in sentence case, should be used as its title.

SchreiberBike talk 20:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Schreiber, I think the parenthetical is necessary, but it can be removed as long as we provide examples.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, as nom, --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I respectfully oppose.  If the creator of a musical or literary work does not give it a title, and if that work becomes widely and commonly known by its first line or a part of it, and if that work remains otherwise entitled, then, I suggest, those words (the words by which the work has become known) have become the title (if I may indulge in some hackneyed but applicable words, in effect, in a real sense, and for all practical purposes), those words should be written in the title case, exactly as though the creator had given that title to the work at the outset.  Doc.  DocRushing (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC).
  • SmokeyJoe - Valid point, but not entirely relevant to the question being asked. Here, the reason for this discussion started the reliable sources for 300 years indicated sentence case, the composer said sentence case, CMOS says sentence case, Wikipedia editors said title case. FYI: As you can see above, I initially proposed "supported by reliable sources" (which I would think we might want to consider adding) but still this is more about fixing an abused, and lacking provision of the MOS, and since MOS is heavily dependent on CMOS, and CMOS says this, bringing it into consistency with the rest of the world (including those who write the reliable sources) that relies on CMOS and similar style guides).--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I suggest to add "in English", because in languages such as German and French, we do that anyway, to also speak of consistency for once. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the short version, w Gerda's mod & examples per ColonelHenry. @DocRushing: I think that would open up a huge can of worms, with endless debates over whether a source is reliable enough or usage is common enough to to change from the original. — kwami (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
A title is a title is a title, regardless of whether a title has become a title by usage or by assignment (by the composer at the outset).  Who knows, or who wishes to research and determine, whether the title of a work arose by popular usage or by assignment by the creator.  That would be "a huge can or worms".  For example, did John Newton give the title "Amazing Grace" to his famous lyrics when he composed them, or did the public do so afterward?  Further, countless hymnals publish an unknown number of hymns bearing titles identical to the first few words of the first stanza, all (or substantially all) printed in the title case.  If a faction at the Wikipedia wishes to decree a mandatory use of the sentence case under that circumstance, I suggest that that faction at the Wikipedia may be "the first to confer officialness" to its fondness for the sentence case.  Doc.  DocRushing (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC).
The discussion about that was above, right below Q1. This is about the different wordings for the consensus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Frau Arendt, in her recent edit summary, complained that my most recent contribution (above), is, in her words, too late and in a wrong place.
On the other hand, however, while the discussion was still open and in process, three different times – at 02:10 and 20:22, 27 December 2013, and at 19:19, 28 December 2013 – I sought to stimulate a reasonable response and a candid conversation – about my suggestion that sometimes a first line (or a part of it) becomes a title.
Unfortunately, my efforts fell on deaf ears or blind eyes; nobody answered; everybody ignored my proposition, brushed it aside, and continued with what they wanted to do.
Is that the standard protocol at the Wikipedia?  Is it routine for an ingroup to ignore an alternative view from an outsider -- and eventually say that it's too late?
Is that a good way to do business?
Best wishes to all anyway,
Doc.  DocRushing (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC).
@DocRushing:, as discussed far above, this proposal came about because some poems, music and other works are capitalized in sentence case in reliable sources. There was a desire to see Wikipedia follow the lead of those sources. I'm sorry you felt brushed aside or ignored, but the consensus disagreed with you and moved on to the process of coming up with appropriate language. SchreiberBike talk 06:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi docRushing,
Unfortunately, this place is like a pub for the deaf, where people walk in an out, and write their thougths on walls, and an audience watches these writing conversations. The audience is tansient, and sometimes not there at all. People returning may or may not read the old writing. Sometimes, when people get agitated in their arguments, some people attempt to apply rules of debate. This is the "standard protocol." I can think of worse ways to do it.
A title is not necessarily a title. It is only a title if a reliable source says it is a title, or uses it as a title, unless maybe it is obviously a title. Some things can have multiple titles used by different groups at different times. The official title may be unsuitable. The mob may have decided to re-title. I think we have already decided that small church self-published hymnals are not reliable sources. Is a big church mass-published hymnal a RS? Wikipedians are very experienced at deciding what is an RS. The rules are not simple, it depends on usage and context. To get an answer, there is WP:RSN. Debating superiority of RSs vis-à-vis the "official" sources is something Wikipedians think is their role. I think that Wikipedia should never be the first to confer officialness to the new title, because Wikipedia should be led by reliable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Q2 Defer to original if supported also by a majority of reliable sources

  • Support --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose directly contravenes the longstanding MOS guideline for no discernible reason. Deor (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
    • @Deor: - Thanks for your support on #1...how would you like to see the wording amended?--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I think we should keep the two proposals separate, and perhaps first talk about the wording. Deor, I am surprised to see the term "longstanding" applied to the MOS (or anything else in Wikipedia), arguing that a tradition of 80 years of publishing, performing, knowing a piece should be of minor importance. Can we try a wording that gives first choice to a title with such a tradition (as the Common name), even if it does not follow the MOS? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • #2 is going to be controversial, because many regulars of the MOS think that we shouldn't make exceptions to the MOS only because there are contradictions with usage in sources. We should separate the proposals, to prevent a repetition of the last trainwrecks. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose A recipe for endless arguments over what the majority supports. It also clashes with the whole idea of having an MOS, and as such has been repeatedly rejected. — kwami (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as not sufficiently refined a proposal. I don't support the proposed text as written. We should not defer to an original title without reference to how others titled the work. If others all titled the work differently to the author, we should probably follow the reliable secondary sources over the author. We do not blindly collect and reproduce.

    "A Boy was Born" is a challenging case for seeking exception. The easily understood top level rule is that in Title Case, we capitalize important words and do not capitalize unimportant words. We defined the first and last words as important. Propositions, on which we have debated lengthily above, are complicated for rules, because they can defy easy assignment of importance. "Was" is a verb, and verbs are near-universally taken as important. The verb "was" and "is" may be an exception?

    I support progress here towards describing the not-uncommon exceptions to MOSCT. This question is a fair attempt, and I support the effort. Perhaps we should emphasize the general rule ("capitalize important words") an de-emphasize adherence to the barely accessible CMOS. [CMOS adherents should be asked to justify the CMOS rules, and not be allowed to argue "because of the CMOS rule"]. I suggest a method for determining importance might be to ask whether the title meaning can be equally interpreted with the word omitted? Does "A Boy Born" convey the same meaning as "A Boy was Born"? If yes, the word is unimportant and should not be capitalized. This might be a good rule for Wikipedia because ordinary editors can understand it and participate. NB. These are fresh ideas. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose—we should just stick with a house style to foster a consistent look. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This defeats the whole purpose of having a style guide. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A manual of style exists for consistency and this option allows too many options and too much room for argument.SchreiberBike talk 17:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Q3 Still, still, still

Another one in the context of strange caps. Our article is at present Still, Still, Still. Why is that? The capitalisation rules are only for English titles, as far as I see, - this is German: de:Still, still, still, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems it should be l.c. both for that reason and for the consensus proposal above. Should be made italic as well? — kwami (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
It's a song, not italics, but quotation marks. Will move then, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

"What Love Is Made Of"

Resolved
 – Answered (title is correct); there's no dispute here.

What option should be in the title?: "What Love is Made of", like it is right now or "What Love Is Made of"?

Are you referring to the article What Love Is Made Of? The capitalization there is correct; the first and last words of titles are always capitalized, as are is and other verbs. See MOS:CT. Deor (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Dutch and German surnames van & von

Particularly in an Anthroponymy project. As a result of my effort to find a MOS covering surnames like these, I have come up empty handed. The lack of a clear standardized MOS concerning this has caused disruptive editing. There are editors mistakenly capping the "v" in the Dutch prefix van In question is a surname that came from the Netherlands and colonized in New Netherland in the 1500s. Keeping in mind there were only a small hand full that went back the Netherlands BUT, there were no heirs from this group. In a nutshell the entire surname was basically uprooted from the Netherlands to New Netherland where one single progenitor procreated in the 1500s.

In the course of editing this surname the conflicting editors, so far, have never had any dispute over the origin of this particular Dutch surname.

The consensus is that it is Dutch. The misunderstanding starts when an editor relies on extant examples of a mis-capitalized "v" in print. This has apparently led to skewed perceptions, leaving some to assume a surname has been Anglicized.

Clarity must be made to insure against slipping into an unfounded assumption. The frequency of a mistaken occurrence is no excuse for ignoring what is proper.

The rule is rather easy to wrap ones mind around if you know the origin and history of a particular surname. To a small degree I will concede that on its face so far, it seems to be a minor issue but, being an Anthroponymy project sort of makes a difference, especially when an editor repeatedly makes the same mistake, even reverting corrections.

A misunderstanding of the rule is used as support for mistakes.

There are several articles that make so extremely clear that any serious reader could grasp what is proper. I hesitate in guessing whether the driver of a contrary editing pattern depicts being obtuse or seriously mistaken in their good faith effort. Either way, they are creating a disruptive environment.

  • If the surname is Dutch or German, use a lower case "v" when followed by the given name or a title

Baron von Richthofen and Antonie van Leeuwenhoek

Otherwise it is like any other word it is capped at the start of a sentence but, it is capitalized when used as a stand alone. Correct:

  • Van Vevvenvever was not at work. (begin sentence)
  • "They went to Van Vevvenvever's house." (stand alone)
  • "Sorry, Vivian van Vevvenvever lives down the street. (with given name)
  • The mailbox has General van Vevvenvever's name on it." (with title)

The information is substantial and the references are plenty. Part of the confusion is an unfounded assumption of Anglicization.


The following articles are clear but there is no MOS that I am aware of clarifying what is proper as opposed to intrenched misunderstanding. Van (Dutch) Dutch_surname#Surnames [1]

Somehow there is a notion that all it takes is a name to be in America and suddenly it is "Anglicized" by default....

  1. ^ U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual 3.13 & 3.14

JGVR (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Deciding on a generalised "right" and a "wrong" way to do it here on en.wikipedia would be missing the point, I think. We should follow the usage in good sources. This may lead to us having slightly different van and von for different people or groups of people, but that's OK, and better than the alternative - that we write a rule in the MOS which would then be used to overrule what sources say on other articles. bobrayner (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
But, by not having a clear rule (even if it is loosely enforced) it is leaving open a certain editor an opening to WP:Wikihound my edits this has been an ongonig battle with someone who refuses to try understanding the rule. try reading the silly argument made in their defense about 2 posts after the WP:3O that editor has been following nearly every edit I make wantonly capping names that shouldn't be. It is the hounding as if I am the one making the mistake and having changes made that the editor themselfs have said "is no big deal". Fair enough so why are they making it a big deal by changing how I edit and leaving pages like Jeremias van Rensselaer alone for years but the ones I make are in need of changing within 4 days of being created. additionally Jeremias is the ONLY person anyone that has inherited the name- can get that name. It is Dutch 100% - no question about it ...JGVR (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Dismissing guidelines from the Government Printing Office seems a bit odd alsoJGVR (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

"generalized"? I have a hard time deciding to laugh at your dismissal or agree that in fact I am not asking for anything to be 'generalized" I am looking for standardized according to guidelines taxpayers paid to have compiled into a Printing Guideline.[1]
  1. ^ U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual 3.13 & 3.14

JGVR (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Using the spelling / capitalisation &c used by sources sounds like a clear rule to me. If there's an argument about specific content in an article, shouldn't that be handled somewhere like Talk:Jeremias van Rensselaer? It might also be a good idea to ask for a third opinion though. Wikihounding is bad, but creating an extra rule in the MOS isn't going to stop wikihounding. bobrayner (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I am coming across this issue as well (See Van 't Hoff equation, not only do people misspell it "Van't Hoff" but also miscapitalize as "van't Hoff"), it would be good to set the general guideline here. However I did find one thing confusing. On the page Van_(Dutch)#Collation_and_capitalisation it is stated that I should say "van der Waals radius" when talking about the property, but "Van der Waals" when talking about the person, is this true? --Nanite (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters/Archive_11&oldid=1137419876"