Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters

Capitalize internet?

Should Internet be capitalized or lowercase? Is there a guideline on this somewhere? I did a quick search of this page and couldn't find anything, so if there is a rule, it should probably be added. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if there's an official guideline, but there's an article (Capitalization of "Internet")! So I'd say it doesn't matter, just as both email and e-mail are acceptable. Unless the distinction is important for meaning, use whichever form you prefer. I personally agree with the sentiment expressed in that article: "Many publications today disregard the historical development and use the term in its common noun spelling, arguing that it has become a generic medium of communication." --BDD (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I personally agree with the common noun form, but it's good to know there's no guideline (yet). ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively in various places in WP, and the result, as I understand it, is that we capitalize the Internet, but not an internet, if you get my drift. Here's a discussion from way back in 2004: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (capitalization)#Capitalisation of 'I' in Internet and 'W' on World Wide Web, when it seemed pretty unsettled. Here's one I settled in 2011: Talk:Internet protocol suite#Capitalization in "internet layer", after capitalization of the Internet was pretty well ingrained. Probably it's not in a guideline, but I'd regard it as settled by consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is one of my favorite linguist authorities on this question. Normally, I'm a downcaser, but I think the case for capitalizing the Internet is pretty good. Dicklyon (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

(A year late, but just in case there should be any subsequent question:) I concur with Dick. Any interconnection of computer networks can be an internet, but the Biggest Daddy of Them All is Internet. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• The Internet (the world-wide network of networks based primarily upon the TCP/IP protocol) is always capitalized. An internet, any network of smaller networks, is not capitalized, and is rarely used because of the ambiguity to most readers.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼  10:26, 25 March 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

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

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.

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)

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)

• Title as published; what, without changing the font or font-size? Tony (talk) 12:31, 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)

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)

Caps for refs? Caps for titles?

1. Do titles of references have to follow the rules here-in. Roe vs. Wade here made me think) or should they NOT, be handled as if they were in quotes? I've seen all caps or sentence case.

2. Units/typos: I've seen "10GB" or "10GiB" in titles of refs (or the article itself. The MOS says use (nonbreak) space: "10 GB", is it at least allowed for ref-titles (I tend to to search/replace, have been avoiding changeg refs which is inconvenient). In general would this be ok for quotes? And correct "typos" in general, I've wanted to add a space after a comma.. The second case "10GiB", the MOS says use GB for GiB, I'm assuming this should not be changed to GB (the "quote" rule, so we might have a semi-quote rule?).

3. And I'm not sure about (medical) titles, upper case wrong, see here: Podiatrist

Just to answer question 3: people sometimes like to capitalize things like professional titles, but normal writing doesn't ("My mother is a Teacher."—you wouldn't write that, would you?) and I think it's accurate to say we generally have a consensus here not to do it, at least for professions. There is occasionally debate about certain titles, such as chief mechanical engineer, but even that is lowercase these days. None of this is to suggest we have particularly good adherence to the MOS or even particularly good writing on some articles out there. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:33, 27 December 2013 (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)

• FYI: This isn't the only case of this screwup.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:59, 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)

• Easy, Tiger! I agree with your point that the title should be rendered as "Remember not, Lord, our offences" - but our MOS should be nuanced enough to support your point, not so blunt that it allows "Remember Not, Lord, Our Offences". But, reaching back to sources to support style leads to insane results (although not necessarily in this case) - hence the relevance of Wikipedia:Specialist style fallacy. In short - my point is, improve the MOS so that the answer in this case comes out as "Remember not, Lord, our offences". Shem (talk) 19:23, 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

• --Enric Naval (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Some literary works are untitled, and their first sentence is used to refer to them. In those cases, sentence capitalization should be used:" --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
• Sounds good.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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

• Support --ColonelHenry(talk) 19:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support #1 in theory, though not in the exact wording proposed. Deor (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
• !support #1, it's consistent with both style manuals and usage in RS. It solves a whole category of titles. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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 – It's a bit wordy, but the substance is fine. — kwami (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support: "Literary works, not originally titled but later known by their first line, that are capitalized sentence-style in reliable sources, should remain capitalized as per the most reliable sources."
  No strong opinion on whether "poems, anthems, some musical works" should be explicitly named. Don't understand why naming "some medieval works" is helpful, why "medieval" I imagine some readers asking", it would be better to give an example of such a medieval work.--SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support the theme ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support the sentiment per the Chicago Manual of Style. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:37, 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)

• Agree that an ordinary church liturgy book should not be ranked highly as a source to defer to on style. Prefer academic or scholarly sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 28 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.

• Anyone else's thoughts? -- @Deor:, @Enric Naval:, @Robsinden:, @SmokeyJoe:, @ErikHaugen:, @SchreiberBike:, @J. Johnson:, @Shem1805:, @DocRushing:, @Gerda Arendt:

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).

• I think we should wait for a single reliable source to use title case, because Wikipedia should not be the first to confer officialness to the new title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 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)
  • Now separated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 27 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)

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)

"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)

A flower today

Let's imagine I wanted to expand "Of a Rose, a lovely Rose", what should the title be? This is the title as published. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

My first thought was that it made no sense the way it is above, but as usual with more research it is more complicated. It is the first line of a movement of a larger piece and the first line of the poem the movement is based on. The movement and poem don't have any other title. Reliable sources capitalize it that way. Rose is capitalized because when they say Rose, they mean Mary. I'd say that you have it right above, but you should fully expect some editor to come along in the future and capitalize the "l", because it looks wrong. Then you will have to explain the above. That's my thinking - hope it helps. SchreiberBike talk 00:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

“Then you will have to explain the above.” — that's what <!-- comments --> are for! — A. di M.  09:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The small el looks funny. And I don't quite see that an individual's logic concerning capping the r because it symbolises someone needs to be duplicated ad-infinitum. Tony (talk) 10:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree the small el looks odd, but SchreiberBike's explanation of it is right on the money and justifies the unique capitalisation. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Cases like this come up often enough (and sometimes so furiously) that MOS badly needs to account for them categorically, and distinguish such handling of titles of published works using the orthography RS consistently use, from kowtowing to silly logo shenanigans by pop stars (Ke$ha) and companies (macy^★s), and from violating WP:ASTONISH and other general principles by adopting WP:SSF style-pushing from one narrow field that contradicts the grammatical expectations of every other English-speaker on the planet. The reasons for using or not using capitalization in each case are quite distinct.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼  03:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Ability To Benefit also known as ATB

Resolved

 – Question answered (it's not capitalized), article moved to ability to benefit.

I created this article today by clicking on a red link. It's a specific term used in US post-secondary education and also the name of the test(s) used to assess it. The capitalised "To" doesn't seem right (although some sources capitalise it that way). I need some advice about what to move it to, if at all:

• Ability to Benefit ?
• Ability to benefit ?

Google results – Voceditenore (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If ability to benefit is an ability that some students have, I wouldn't capitalize it at all, it's just a descriptive phrase. If it's a federally defined status relating to the ability to apply for federal financial aid, then a case could be made for capitalizing it the way the government does. If it's a specific test like the Wonderlic Basic Skills Test - Ability-to-Benefit, then it would be capitalized the same way a book or movie title would be.

I'm not surprised that it's often capitalized where education jargon is used, but I don't think it would be in a general encyclopedia. The references, even the Department of Education website, don't capitalize it in running text. So I'd vote for Ability to benefit. SchreiberBike talk 20:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Chicago MOS and the Oxford style guide both say to minimise the use of caps. There would have to be a very good case to cap at all, here. If downcased, would it be competing with another page title? Tony (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both. There are no competing titles with downcased capitalisation. I'm inclined to go with Ability to benefit as the title, and "ability to benefit" in the article unless the phrase begins a sentence (although using ATB gets around most of those occasions). I'm going to move the article and leave the alternative capitalisations as redirects. Voceditenore (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. What would you suggest for the question just above? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, that phrase seems to be hardly ever capitalized in Google Books, though I wouldn't know how many of those occurrences actually refer to something else. — A. di M.  09:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• The "to" shouldn't be capitalized here. It's semi-conventional in some circles to capitalize an entire acronym, but this is not universal (e.g. many of us write AfD); when it is, this does not somehow retroactively confer capitalization on words in unabbreviated phrases if they would not normally have it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼  10:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC) PS: The "benefit" wouldn't be capitalized here either, though it would if this were the title of a book or some such. The article has alread long singe been moved to ability to benefit, with lead: "Ability to benefit (ATB) is a term...", so I'm marking this {{resolved}}.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼  03:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

President of the United States

In a section on compound nouns, WP:JOBTITLE gives the example “President of the United States.” As this title does not include a compound noun, it is not clear what rule, if any, it is supposed to be illustrating. In any case, The Chicago Manual of Style gives "president of the United States," so this is clearly an incorrect usage. It was added sometime in 2012 without discussion. The Clever Boy (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

That phrase does not include a compound noun but "Vice President Ford" is the example. -- PBS (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed wrong - and I can't believe this hasn't been noticed for two years! It was inserted on 23 January 2012 by User:PBS with the comment "See talk Use US example not Prime Minister which is a job description not a title." The relevant discussion is here. The consensus at the talk page does not seem to have been implemented - which might explain how it slipped through the net. I suggest the best thing is to implement the consensus reached at the talk page in 2012 - unless anybody has any objections. Shem (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The consensus was implemented which alternative would you prefer? -- PBS (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have no objection. "Prime Minister" has been bantered about as a "title" of office since Parliament's 1935 budget. PBS's assertion was historically incorrect. There's a difference between saying "the American president" "the president of the Untied States said today... vs. "Warren G. Harding, the 29th President of the United States" or "the prime minister said" or "Prime Minister Chamberlain" and "Blair became the prime minister" vs. "The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of...etc.", "Pope Francis, Vicar of Christ", or "the pope". Context matters. --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Follow-up: Just to say the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom article overcapitalises it in the general uses throughout the article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

One does not usually write "Prime Minister Chamberlain" in British English, which was the whole point of the change to an American example of the compound noun of "Vice President" which is used as title (as in Vice President Biden). As to whether Ford became the "38th President of the United States" or "38th president of the United States" I am disinterested. -- PBS (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not "Prime Minister Chamberlain" is atypical in BrEng is rather arguable anymore, since some of the UK newsrags have started acting like Yanks with some of their idioms, and that usage keeps creeping into history books--which I think might be an issue of British scholars being published more often by an American press that just happens to have a London office.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It is still broadly the case I did a simple quick search on google uk for the current prime minster with "site:uk" as a parameter, "Prime-Minister-Cameron" site:uk the only reliable sites returned on the first couple of pages using were foreign embassies and the like and one foreign office blog page. In comparison "Prime-Minister-Cameron" using google.com returns two White House pages using phrase. Undoubtedly there will be instances of its usage in the UK press from time to time, but it is not common in flowing text, which is why I think it better not to use it as an example. BTW ColonelHenry I am familiar with where the term Prime Minster came from (that it was originally a derogatory term for Walpole)) and broadly how its usage has developed since then, but in this case I was not using title as an abbreviation for ""title of office" bur for title as used in the first bullet point of the section "When followed by a person's name to form a title ...". -- PBS (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• This is simply an exception to a rule, not a rule. President of the United States, Prime Minister of the UK, Secretary General of the UN, Pope, etc., are among various titles that are honored with perpetual capitalization, even when used generically not individually, as a convention of courtesy, principally one pushed by journalists. It's common enough to have stuck, but it does not illustrate a general rule about, say, politicians, or job titles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼  03:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Titles within titles: "starring" and "presents"

I’d like to suggest a reconsideration of the rules when referring to words like "presents" and "starring". These words introduce or follow a title within a title, and are therefore not part of one in the usual way. The cases I have in mind are: Brian Wilson Presents Smile → Brian Wilson presents Smile and The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson → The Tonight Show starring Johnny Carson. At the latter article, there’s even a picture of the title card that displays it as "starring", and yet the rules don’t allow it. Some common sense here, please! Rothorpe (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• I would tend to agree with you. Reliable Sources and accuracy go by the wayside because of the militant crowd insisting that the MOS is infalliable and not subject to question. If there was a vote to reconsider this (mis)application of capitalisation, I'd vote for lowercasing "starring" and "presents".--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• I also agree with Rothrope and I support this proposal. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

How about wording along the lines: "Exceptions should be made for words introducing or following titles within article titles, such as presents and starring"? Rothorpe (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Sounds good. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Not a viable proposal. Also, assume good faith and avoid casting aspersions on other editors in anything to do with MOS or WP:AT; they're under WP:Discretionary sanctionss. That said, the matter is not this simple; the actual title of many works, especially radio and television programs in fact of the "X presents Y" form; the title is not simply "Y".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼  10:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Reply: No one is saying the title is simply "Y". I notice you did not capitalise "presents". Exactly, this is what the proposal proposes, removing the requirement to uppercase such a word in such a case. Rothorpe (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support  Responding to the RfC, I would say support.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• AHHHH why does the RfC not list what you are requesting people to comment on? Red Slash 04:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support for words introducing titles within titles. If a word, for example, presents is part of title then this is not an instance of title within a title.(Littleolive oil (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC))
• Strong oppose. If the word is part of the title, it should be treated as such. Besides, sources [1][2][3] tend to use the capitalised version too. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Reply: [1] also shows the title card, where "starring" is lower case; [2] also has the lower case "i' in 'SMiLE", thus imitating the stylized version on the sleeve (where the P of "presents" is ambiguous); and [3] capitalises the first letter of every word, as in "Heroes And Villains", for example. Rothorpe (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, the sources are irrelevant really, as everything has its own house style. I was just pointing out that they don't back up your argument, not even Carson's own DVDs. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Of course, not everything is going to do so. But there, we have THE TONIGHT SHOW Starring JOHNNY CARSON, where "Starring" is again played down. Rothorpe (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Correct, formal title

WP:JOBTITLE says to capitalize "King of France" because it is "a correct formal title...treated as a proper name." You would certainly capitalize this phrase if it is substituting for the proper name of an individual. There are also rules about capitalizing titles of nobility that we may or may not want to follow. But this reason does not make any sense to me. The Clever Boy (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's pooly worded.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼  10:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"for the proper name of an individual." what is a "proper name"? -- PBS (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

A proper name is a proper name.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼  01:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

In this case it ain't that simple because historically defining what a person's name was depends on the jurisdiction and also their rank. In this case what is the proper name of Louis XVI? -- PBS (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd always read this as meaning "proper noun" (a unique entity), which would be more accurate I think. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if the third point can be considered redundant with the second point: "When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name." That is to say, if a title is understand to refer to an individual title holder, then you capitalize it. I don't know that this issue arises much in encyclopedic writing, but minions may refer their bosses as "the Prime Minister", "the President," etc. without an obvious antecedent, as if this was the subject's name. The Clever Boy (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• @PBS: That's a meaningless question, effectively; there is no "the" proper name of Louix XVI; I think you're mistakenly importing to this context some of the reasoning of WP:COMMONNAME, which seeks to find one particular name for us to encyclopedically prefer for article titling, but which has nothing to do with style questions like what this page is about. Any sourceable name we have for Louis XVI is a proper name. @Hchc2009:: The proper noun article is mis-titled and mis-written. The actual concept is proper name; in noun form it is a proper noun ("Italy"), but in adjectival form ("Italian", "Italo-"), it remains a proper name. It doesn't lose its "properness" (capitalization) by virtue of not being a noun any longer. This does not hold true across all languages, but is a solid fact of English usage. @The Clever Boy: President (of a nation, not a company) and Prime Minister are among various honorary exceptions we conventionally always capitalize; they cannot be broadened in the way you suggest without absurd results, capitalizing every stand-in for the official name of anyone or anything.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼  03:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not suggesting any broadening. The broader rule is already in the guideline, so the narrower one is redundant. The Clever Boy (talk) 05:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Like. See WT:Manual of Style#"Generic words" specific rule needs to be generalized; you may have specific ideas on how to work that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼  07:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

"Generic words" specific rule needs to be generalized

Moved to WT:Manual of Style § "Generic words" specific rule needs to be generalized

The "Generic words" provision at MOS:CAPS#Institutions (and a similar one a section later, about geographic names, and another similar one, I think under organizations) is really a general fact about any such proper name or title. It would be nice if we codified the following examples (or some like them) into one overarching rule. How to do this is worth discussing in detail, but I've moved that discussion to WP:MOS proper because 10x more people participate here than this sub-guideline's talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼  07:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Bird article name (capitalisation)

There were move discussion on Talk:Crowned crane#Requested move about the capitalisation of the title of four articles related to birds species. The rationale is that there is no reason why bird names should be capitalised (guidance WP:BIRDS) while Wikipedia recommends that all species names should not be written with capitals (official guidelines WP:TITLE, WP:FAUNA, WP:CONLEVEL and WP:NCCAPS).

It was followed by a request for comments on the same subject, Talk:Crowned crane#Request for comments. The move discussion was closed (and the pages moved) on 26 March 2014, see Talk:Crowned crane#Requested move for details. There is now an ongoing follow-up discussion on Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 March.

Mama meta modal (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC).

New discussion

The important discussion started on Talk:Crowned crane and Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 March#Black crowned crane now moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#A new proposal regarding bird article names.

Mama meta modal (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC).

Science and mathematics

I had a discussion (about "(Z|z)ener diodes") recently:

[...] Our own MoS says

In the names of scientific and mathematical concepts, only proper names (or words derived from them) should be capitalized: Hermitian matrix, Lorentz transformation. However some established exceptions exist, such as abelian group and Big Bang theory.

[...] SpinningSpark 01:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"Only x should" does not mean "all x should". Not even "most x should". ;–) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that's just playing with semantics. The intention is clear. SpinningSpark 05:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Is the intention indeed clear? If yes, what it actually is: "only proper, but not common", or "all proper", or "proper ... usually"? Probably, it needs to be stated more clearly. (And, apparently, there must be a comma after "However".) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it should mean to say "...capitalize most, but not all, proper (e.g. Zener diode, Hall effect thruster, diesel engine) and some exceptional common (e.g. Big Bang theory)..." —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC) (edited) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Place names

I recently moved Land O' Lakes, Florida to Land o' Lakes, Florida, since 'of' shouldn't be capitalized. But all sources seem to capitalize the O. As an unincorporated community, there's probably no 'official' name. Any advice? --NE2 14:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

While there may be no "official name" the community was named after the company (yes, the butter company in Wisconsin) which uses a capital O, and is always referenced as a capital O. I don't think someone else can "know better" than the residents and neighbors how to spell the name; it is a name, not a title.Jacona (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• NO - @NE2: That form doesn't comport with the official Pasco County, FL website, Rasmussen College, the local high school, the local chamber of commerce, and the United States Postal Service, and USGS Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) entry and the census designated place, all of the reliable google results I see--and as someone who once lived there, any of the mail I've ever received--ALL OF WHICH disagree with you. Per WP:UCN, reliable sources, usage, and what looks to be an "official name" should trump the MOS on the issue of "of" and your (mis)interpretation of the MOS. You are mistaken, please revert your changes. and, for the record, JaconaFrere, the place is named because that section of Pasco County where 41 and 54 meet, there are 1400 lakes, ponds, etc, (most of them sinkholes) between Zephyrhills and Lutz--many of them incorporated into housing developments built since the 1980s. Any satellite map will show you that. The butter producer has nothing to do with it.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• You seem to have applied WP:MOSCT to a place name, but the correct part of this guideline would have been WP:NAMECAPS. WP:MOSCT wouldn't apply to place names. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Capitalisation of last word

MOS:CT#Composition_titles says the first and last word should be capitalised; I know the first word must be capitalised because of technical details, but why the last? ^walk victor falk ^talk 17:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Because The Place We Ran from would look really odd? The first words of Wikipedia's articles' titles are capitalized "because of technical details", but that has nothing to do with the capitalization of composition titles. Deor (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Because everybody else does it. My children can't use that excuse, but it works for Wikipedia. Basically it means we follow existing established styles, and that usage is recommended by the majority of style books and is what is done by the majority of sources.SchreiberBike talk 18:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, the first letter isn't capitalized because of technical details. When the first letter shouldn't be capitalized, we don't: iPhone, for example. As SchreiberBike said, we do so because that's the accepted style; first words and last words are more significant than middle words in titles, and are capitalized even whey they are short prepositions, conjunctions, or other words that wouldn't be capitalized in the middle of a title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The actual title of the article you cited is "IPhone". It just contains the {{Lowercase title}} template so that the title displays as "iPhone". The "real" names of all WP articles begin with capital letters (which is what I presumed the OP was referring to with "because of technical details"). Deor (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

And the other "real" name of the article iPhone does not begin with an uppercase letter, thanks to tools that allow the "real" title displayed to be different from the "real" title behind the scenes. My point is that the first word must be capitalized when it needs to be capitalized because it's the correct style, which happens to line up with the behind-the-scenes necessity. It's not capitalized simply because of the behind-the-scenes necessity. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The original idea behind title case seems to be the avoidance of emphasis on "little words" in the middle of a title. Personally, I agree that In The Court Of The Crimson King is aesthetically jarring because the brain tends to ignore "little words" in running text and focus on nouns. Historically, title case may be a trace of German-style noun capitalisation, which was used in earlier English, too, based on the same idea of emphasising important words such as nouns and de-emphasising less important words (even though the precise rules of capitalisation vary of course).

At the time when printing appeared, the practice was simply guided by the vague principle "capitalise important words", which was interpreted in constantly evolving and inconsistent ways over the centuries prior to the introduction of standardised orthographies (at least in German there was a tendency to capitalise more and more words, which reached a peak in the highly redundant, ornate and – well, baroque – orthographic habits of the Baroque era and then grew more economic).

"Little words" in this sense, by the way, are regularly unstressed and often clitics – they aren't really independent words in a sense, but fulfil various syntactic (or in general, grammatical) functions, thus being more like "little helpers". Words that do get capitalised, on the other hand, are usually content words. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

First the Vagina Monologues and now clitics? Is this really necessary? EEng (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Parenthetical phrases

Have I interpreted the house rule in its current form correctly here? If so, the article should be renamed. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that article should be renamed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Praxis

I think of translating de. The editor's article here has Praxis pietatis melica, which follows our normal practice of no capitalization in Latin. On the historic title page (pictured there), we have all caps, no help. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Title of an article here should be rendered Praxis pietatis melica, given how we treat Latin titles. If there's any doubt, trust Britannica[4], the book at Google Books[5], and book at the Bavarian State Library[6], just for starters. A large number of the capitalised title hits on google seem to be connected to the erroneous capitalisation on Wikipedia. Few reliable book sources render it at P.P.M., most are P.p.m. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)