Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)/Archive 5

Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Capitalization of foreign-language recordings

I really hate to beat up a dead horse and I was hoping I would never have to deal with this again. But regrettably, the issue has come up again. About a week ago or so, AJona1992 requested "Baila esta cumbia" to be moved to "Baila Esta Cumbia" because that is the spelling most English-language reliable sources used. However, this move was opposed because it technically goes against proper grammar in Spanish. Even when I pointed out the guideline here that: "If the article is about a work in a foreign language (such as a book or other written work, movie, album, or song), using the capitalization found in most English-language reliable sources is recommended", the article was still not moved. The closing administrator pointed out that "If the French expression is untranslated (not a loan word), follow French capitalization practice.... for many works of art the capitalization practice can be derived from the original publication, e.g. the capitalization of the title of a French novel can usually be derived from how it was published. For Spanish, German, and any language usually written in the Latin alphabet the same (or something similar) would apply, so the guidance of WP:NCCAPS here remains unclear and/or contradictory" which is why I'm here. This is not even the first time I've been involved in case. Three years ago, there was a guideline on WP:WikiProject Albums that said a foreign-language album should use its native capitalization which an editor pointed out to me when I using capitalization found on English-language sources. However, when I started moving Spanish-language albums to its native capitalization, I got into major trouble and it's still painful for me to talk about it. Yet months later, the community still opted to go for the foreign-language albums to use its native capitalization as a user stated that "Capitalization of expressions borrowed from other languages" saying that "albums and songs aren't special cases as far as I'm concerned. This states that foreign-language terms are to be written according to those languages' conventions, unless that term has been widely adopted into English. (Bearing in mind that article's titles and text are written in English, using the Latin script". I should point out they were in favor of applying native capitalization of foreign-language songs on the track listing rather than the article title. Then the "French-language expression loan" was also pointed out on the Como Ama una Mujer talk page for a requested move although the move to use its native capitalization was rejected. That isn't the only WikiProject that wishes for foreign-language works to use its native capitalization. This is also a guideline at WikiProject Classical music which says to "For Italian, French, Spanish, and Portuguese titles, capitalize only the first word and any proper nouns (names of particular people or places) in that language". So you have two WikiProjects which support foreign-language titles using its native capitalization. But this feeling isn't mutual at WikiProject Latin music (of which I'm a member of), that primarily deals with Spanish- and Portuguese-language recordings, where most of the active members (including myself because of what happened before) prefer to use capitalization found on English-language sources.

I'm aware about the issue of capitalization for foreign-language works has been brought up several times before. The earliest debate goes back to in 2007 which only involved about three editors and it was agreed to use capitalization found on English-language. Then there was of a debate of whether or not an Italian-language film should use its native capitalization or the capitalization found on most English-language reliable sources where the latter was preferred. Going back to WikiProject Albums, the preference for foreign-language titles in albums was discussed and agreed in 2008. I noticed some inconsistencies too. For example, there is a good article for a French-language song which uses capitalization found on English-language sources, but Celine Dion albums discography (a FL) uses its French-capitalization despite sources such as Allmusic using different capitalization and it was never brought up on the FLC. The point I'm trying to make is that the guideline for capitalization of foreign-language works doesn't seem to be clear enough. It says to use capitalization found on most English-language reliable sources, yet there's a preceding paragraph which leads to this guideline stating that French-language works of art are to use its native capitalization if there are no English variants. But what about Spanish and Italian-language works of art? What makes French-language works of art special that the other languages cannot follow its own capitalization too? As I mentioned earlier, I do not support foreign-language works of art following its native capitalization, but this inconsistency cannot be ignored. Not just because of what happened earlier, but sometimes you have recordings that uses of a mix of both Spanish and English in its title. For example, Desde un Principio: From the Beginning, a compilation album by Marc Anthony uses both languages in its title. Then there are some recordings that uses Spanglish words and Spanish-language recordings that use an English-language title and vice-versa. What happens to those articles then? Again, I'm sorry for bringing up another discussion about capitalization of foreign-language works, but I am frustrated at the moment and I just want to continue working on Latin music albums without further disruption. I have some suggestions to compromise what should and shouldn't use its native capitalization, but I would rather hear comments from other editors first. Erick (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment:First off, I think you did an awesome job in summarizing the topic to date in a dispassionate manner despite your taxing history with the topic. That said, perhaps because I am a polyglot (sorta), I feel that any proper name (when referred to in its native language) should be copied and pasted as is. Unfortunately, Wikipedia policy and practice are at odds on multiple levels and should absolutely be made consistent, but it seems intuitive to me that a name is a name, and inviting editors to use their judgement to deviate from that standard should be the exception and not the rule. The only exception (in my mind) would be if the English speaking world had a name for something that is more common than the name in the native language, like Arch of Titus (instead of Arcus Titi in the native Latin). The big problem with applying English grammar to foreign languages is that it opens up the can of worms of the language proficiency of the editor. In English, we don't capitalize the articles and prepositions in titles unless they come at the beginning of the title. So then, in Spanish titles, do we capitalize "el" or "las"? What about "unas" or "un"? Which prepositions do we not capitalize? En? Fuera? Bajo? Entre? Sobre? What about if one of those words are used in a pun, and "sobre" means "over" and "envelope" at the same time? Or how about in German, they capitalize ALL nouns, whether proper or not. So, if we copy and paste something from that language, should we then have to sniff out which nouns should not have been capitalized? In Russian (and many other languages) they conjugate nouns and proper names. Should we remove those endings because they don't conform to English conjugations? When you bring in Spanglish titles it just gets even more nasty. How do we make it comform to English grammar? Should we even try? I say no. Just copy and paste whatever its officially called it and we're done.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - excellent summary. There is a conflict between the minority of quality sources (eg English language Latin music books, Grove MOS, Continuum MOS) and the majority of non quality sources (eg Billboard MOS): so the guideline "using the capitalization found in most English-language reliable sources is recommended" should be changed to the most reliable, or simply we have a MOS like WP:FRMOS for French accents and stick to it. Hunting round to duplicate the MOS song-by-song for "English sources" for most songs is daft and random. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
    • @In inctu oculi: Now that you've mentioned it, going back to what happened to me in 2011, I noticed that Amazon, Billboard, or Discogs were used against ALBUMCAPS at the time, but since when were they ever reliable sources especially on grammar? Amazon is just a retail store, Billboard capitalizes the beginning of every word even in English regardless whether of its proper or not, and Discogs isn't accepted as a reliable source as it is user-created content as far as I know. Allmusic is fine since it is considered a reliable source by WikiProject Music and their capitalization is what I usually use on the articles I work on. It would be way more preferable to use capitalization found on other reliable English-language encyclopedias, books, or as you say the most reliable sources. Then there are cases of foreign-language albums with track listings that follow its native capitalization. A perfect example would be Ni es lo mismo ni es igual by Juan Luis Guerra where the album title and its track listing follows the capitlization rules. Most popular Spanish-language albums don't usually follow its native capitalization because they are usually recorded here in the US. Maybe SMcCandlish's proposed suggestions for Spanish-language telenovelas above could (not saying should) be applied to Spanish-language recordings as well? Erick (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I wish to update my take on capitalization for titles of foreign-language works of art. A few days ago, I brought this issue up on the Latin music project talk page and proposed a guideline on how the project will deal with Spanish- and Portuguese-language recordings. It was unanimously decided by the active members that the Latin music project will utilize capitalization found on English-language reliable sources as opposed to its native capitalization. And thus, I too shall follow the consensus of the project. @Esprit15d: I know you mean well, but you must understand that neither me nor the members of the project will feel the about the issue. There are currently over 100 GAs and 50 FLs in the project and to suddenly apply the rules of capitalization for Spanish or Portuguese would be a daunting task and I doubt any of them would be willing to do it, I know I wouldn't. I should also point out that the majority of members who supported the guideline are native Spanish-speakers. @In inctu oculi: this does mean I will not utilize the native capitalization of a foreign-language recording even if the album cover and track listing does. The only major exception to this is if there are insufficient English-language reliable sources available, then the capitalization on foreign-language reliable sources should be used. So here's my conclusion: Me and the rest of the active members of the Latin music project will use capitalization found on English-language reliable sources. However the Classical, Opera, and Album projects handle foreign-language titles is their decision and I will respect that decision. In turn, I ask that they also respect our decision on how we handle foreign-language titles. That is all I am going to say on this matter. If someone else wishes to continue this discussion, that is fine. Otherwise if no one wants to continue it, then it should be closed. Erick (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The ping above is a redlink, so didn't see it. I wasn't pinged on the other discussion at all. I can only say what I've said before, (1) this is a MOS choice, I am one of those who prefer a hardback book MOS approach to Billboard/Allmusic MOS. (2) the lead is much more important than the title, the lead in my view should follow the real song spelling/capitalization, not Spanglish/Franglish. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi: Then I think we can come to an agreement. If an editor is the sole contributer to an article and wishes to use capitalization found on English-language reliable sources from handbooks like those you mentioned, then that decision should be respected. Likewise, if an editor is the sole contributer to an article and wishes to use English-language reliable websites or other books, then that decision should also be respected. If there are several editors who have contributed to an article, then it should be up to consensus. As I have mentioned before, I respect whatever guidelines the Classical music and Albums projects wishes to follow for foreign-language capitalization and in turn I ask they respect the Latin music project wish as well. Erick (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
@Magiciandude: well I think I have my foot more in Classical music project, and interest in Latin music tends to the jazz/salsa standards rather than pop. It does make more sense for US Latin artists to follow a Caps Title style (for convenience say "Billboard MOS") than for tangos and boleros. I also think your point about respecting article creator/contributor is valid and should be more widely recognised in all projects. I will continue to express my preference for "hardback" style in discussions, but as above the lead is far more important than the title, for example I am going to proceed to remove that eyesore "stylization" repeat on the Ai Se Eu Te Pego lead sentence. It's understandable that Japanese and Korean artwork has "stylizations", but Portuguese is a straightforward Latin alphabet language. Thank you btw for your posts on this subject. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this edit brought on the confusion. The "2 step" rule was never intended for titles of works of art, but for expressions, such as fin de siècle — not for album titles such as Fin de Siècle or Fin de siecle or a book title such as Fin-de-siècle Vienna. It was never the intention to go look for an album title and see whether or not it is an "expression" translated-or-not: the capitalization of a work of art is is independent of the consideration of whether or not that title is an expression.

So I'll separate the two again. Capitalization-wise I think there is some leaning towards the primary source, that is, the title as given by the artist, in whatever language, and stick to the capitalization rules of that language. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

For comparison, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (operas): most opera titles @Wikipedia use the original language, with the capitalization of that language, e.g. La clemenza di Tito. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: Yes, and the Manual of Style for music also does for classical compositions. The bit about using capitalization found on English-language reliable sources was something I added without gaining consensus so I should have brought it up on the talk page first. Anyways, thanks for separating the information into two sections, it should lessen the confusion a lot. Erick (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there still anything that needs further discussion, or can the under discussion tag be removed now? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: I just have two more suggestions for the guideline before finishing this discussion. I would add using capitalization found on foreign-language reliable sources for that work of art if there are too few or no English-language reliable sources available. And per @In ictu oculi:'s suggestion, I think it would be appropriate to change from "in most reliable English-language reliable sources" to "the most reliable English-language sources" since there websites that ignore the proper capitalization for English-language works of art. Erick (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Re. "...if there are too few or no English-language reliable sources available": This is already covered in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#No established usage in English-language sources, so I added a {{see also}} under the section header referring to WP:NCUE.
Re. changing "in most reliable..." to "the most reliable...": no, the first was intended. Ranging sources from "average" reliability to more reliable is illusive: either a source has enough reliability for its intended use in Wikipedia, or it hasn't. Discussions on whether one source is "more" reliable than another, I've seen them, and that's specifically where I wouldn't want to go, per WP:NPOV. It's about quantity in all sources that fall in the spectre of "reliable" when naming issues are concerned. For some topics that can be narrowed down to Google books or whatever, but that follows from general WP:AT policies not needed to be repeated here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: A fair point on both issues and I think that pretty much wraps up this discussion. Again, thanks for the help. Cheers! Erick (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the syntax of the new guideline

To %User:Francis Schonken, §User:Magiciandude, ‡User:In ictu oculi &User:Esprit15d and ¿any other interested parties:

I was linked to the new WP:NCCAPS#Works of art guideline and this discussion from an RM discussion and am glad this issue has been addressed. However, I find the wording of the new section confusing, in particular, the bolded passages that follow:

"If the article is about a work of art (such as a book or other written work, movie, album, song, or composition) with a title in a foreign language, or by a foreign language creator, usually the capitalization found in English-language reliable sources is recommended, but when such sources use different capitalizations there is some leaning towards the capitalization rules valid for the language of the creator."

After a cursory reading the discussion above, my interpretation is that "creator" means creator of the work of art and not the creator of the article but a discussant above uses it to mean the article's creator. Which is the case? In addition, I find that double qualifying "usually" with "recommended" to be a bit weak and the phrases "there is" and "leaning toward" to be excessively vague.

If the guideline indeed refers to the creator of the work then how about some changes along the lines of the following:

If the article is about a work of art (such as a book or other written work, movie, album, song, or composition) with a title in a foreign language, or about a work by a foreign-language creator, usually the capitalization found in English-language reliable sources is recommended, but when such sources use different capitalizations deference should be given to the capitalization rules valid for the language of the creator of the work."

If the guideline instead refers to the creator of the article then how about:

If the article is about a work of art (such as a book or other written work, movie, album, song, or composition) with a title in a foreign language, or was created by a foreign-language contributor, usually the capitalization found in English-language reliable sources is recommended, but when such sources use different capitalizations deference should be given to the capitalization rules valid for the language of the creator of the article."

(I don't really know what a "foreign-language contributor" is, so I hope the latter is not correct.) What thinkes y'all? Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  04:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Uppercasing or lowercasing like as a preposition

Typically, a four-letter preposition must be lowercased. like is anything, like a verb and a preposition. How are Love You like a Love Song and I Like It Like That different from each other? --George Ho (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

When 'like' is a coordinate conjunction, it is capitalized. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 01:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Lists of presidents

Hi, on Talk:List of Presidents of South Sudan, I just saw the remark/question: "No reason to cap "presidents". is there?" by Hadrianheugh. I thought, Hadrian is right, but first I looked it up on this guidelines page, which says, "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name." and does not mention an exception for presidents. So I changed the title of the aforementioned list to List of presidents of South Sudan. But now I discovered Category:Lists of presidents where very many presidents have a large P. Is there perhaps an exception for lists? Bever (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bever: This should not be capitalized, per MOS:JOBTITLES. Errors of this type are widespread at Wikipedia and no one seems to care much. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Sundostund even cared so much that he reverted the move. Without explanation however, so I repeated the move. Bever (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't saw that consensus is reached on Talk:List of presidents of South Sudan about the capitalization, I wouldn't revert if I saw the talk page opinions... As for the capitalization issue in general, take a look at the extensive discussions about the issue which took place in 2012 (Talk:List of Presidents of the United States/Archive 6#Requested move and Talk:List of Federal Presidents of Austria#Requested move). I have nothing more to add to what is already said in those discussions, so I'm letting other users to reach consensus about the issue. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the links, as those discussions show me what I would be up against if I attempted widespread corrections of these errors. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

French capitalization rules

See current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Meanwhile at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#French capitalization rules – seems like some rules might benefit from being harmonized across WikiProjects and more general standards. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolving an old MoS / NC conflict

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Merge in MOS:PN – about merging an old, disused MoS subpage into the relevant major ones. An objection has been raised about potential loss of a line-item in the old page, but it's one that appears to be out-of-scope for MoS in the first place, as it is about article titles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

AoB Plants or AoB PLANTS?

This journal stylizes itself AoB PLANTS. However, I thought that we did not follow such styles and would use normal capitalization conventions, unless something is an initialism. "Plants" obviously is not an initialism, so i guessed the correct title would be "AoB Plants". ("AoB" stands for "Annals of Botany" and is an initialism). However, reading through this guideline, I see nothing mentioned about article names being (in whole or in part) all caps. What's correct here? --Randykitty (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Wrong page. This is covered at MOS:TM. And, yes, it should be AoB Plants. I'll WP:RM that. I just opened one to fix PLOS ONE to PLOS One for the same reason.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Never mind; I see that the article is presently at AoB Plants as it should be. The RM on PLOS One is at Talk:PLOS ONE#Requested move 29 September 2017.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC on capital letters, etc., in Russian train station article titles

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Russian railway line article titles.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  04:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization of eponyms with name parts (L', von, de) not usually capitalized

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#L'Hôpital's rule.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization of article titles for events

Hey there. There has been a short discussion about whether wildfire articles should have "wildfire" capitalized in the article title or not. I parse the points traded so far:

I'd like to create a consensus on this and make it a standalone section here at WP:NCCAPS. Would this be the appropriate place to start that discussion? Should this be something done through an RfC? Or has a similar discussion already occurred? Thanks. --Natural RX 15:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it says to cap "Fire", not "Wildfire". This comes from official agencies that give fires names for their own purposes. It's not clear to me that secondary sources consistently treat these as proper names, but some do. In general, though, no, event descriptions are not proper names. It's sometimes hard to get the point accepted when there's a specialist editor community that likes to cap their stuff, because there are not enough people that care about Wikipedia style guidelines. Getting a more centralized discussion can help. Dicklyon (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
And this is not really a title issue, but a style issue. The title will be the same as how we style it in the article text. But titles are where the discussions take place, just because we have the WP:RM discussion mechanism. The point is, it might be more appropriate at WT:MOS, but cross-list it here and make it a a central discussion; or use WP:VPP to get a wider audience. Dicklyon (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and edited the Wildfire naming conventions to not look like an overt override of MOS:CAPS. Surely the new wording will be acceptable to the project, as it still says to cap Fire when it's part of a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

A move review to consider

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia:Move review#List of Presidents of the United States. Some comments at WT:MOSCAPS has suggested there could be insufficient input so far to reach a clear consensus. Depending on how it turns out, MOS:JOBTITLES might require substantial revision, which could in turn affect the wording at this guideline. (That might or might not be a good idea, but people who watch this page should be aware of it either way.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Spider-Man: Far From Home naming discussion

Additional editors are requested to discuss if the "from" in Spider-Man: Far From Home should be capitalized. The discussion is here Talk:Spider-Man: Far From Home#From or from?. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on fandom-based over-capitalization

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#The endless "fan-capping" problem
How are WP:NCCAPS, etc., failing to get the point across?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Now archived at: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 206#The endless "fan-capping" problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation form and capitalization

The issues raised in Talk:Dan Sullivan (American senator)#Requested move 8 September 2018 may be of interest.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Campaign vs. campaign in military history articles

Hello. There's a discussion watchers of this talk page may be interested in over at WT:MILHIST#Campaign vs campaign. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Apathy is Boring or Apathy Is Boring?

A discussion at Talk:ApathyisBoring#Requested move 30 June 2019 which centers upon the above-mentioned main title header may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Roman Spinner: It's "Is". There is no principle by which a verb in a work title is made lower case (in a title that would be written in title case).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: A year ago, in July 2019, your vote would have been most welcome and might have contributed to convincing the opposition. Unfortunately, the opposition was not convinced and no one has apparently felt any desire to raise the matter again. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, there's a reason this page has a big note at the top to not post here (unless it's about editing this guideline). Hardly anyone watchlists this, and all "style noticeboard" types of discussions usually happen at MoS talk pages, which are heavily watchlisted, at least for the main one (WT:MOS), WT:MOSCAPS, WT:MOSNUM, and a few others.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Watchlister here. Roman Spinner, maybe just RM the page, enough time has gone by and it seems a good argument for a reversal from both of you. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@Roman Spinner and Randy Kryn: I just realized this is an organization's name, not the title of a published work, so MOS:TITLES wouldn't apply to it. MOS:TM is tolerant of minor "typographical shenanigans" iff virtually all independent reliable sources also go along with it. Thus "PlayStation" CamelCase, "iPhone" lEading lOwercase, "DaimlerChrysler" RunTogetherNames, "Deadmau5" character 5ub5titution). If hardly any news and other sources use capital-I "Is" in this organization's case, then WP wouldn't either, even if we would default to "Is", as normal typography for proper names, if sources were widely inconsistent on the matter. E.g., we do not write "macy's" (much less "macy★s") or "SONY" or "Ke$ha", because they're just marketing twaddle that real-world publishers usually ignore. So, an RM would only be feasible if there's strong evidence that a significant percentage (maybe ~20% – there's no exact cut-off or way to be certain, since search results vary) of mainstream, reputable sources write "Apathy Is Boring".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Such was the argument which convinced the majority of participants a year ago. I brought up the successful November 2013 titling discussion at Talk:A Boy Was Born#Requested move (November 2013) (although printed copies of the work depicted the form A Boy was Born), but that example was apparently judged to be not directly analogous. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Right; MOS:TITLES does apply to that. Basically, there's a rare style "out in the wild" (mostly mid-20th-C. and older, but still surviving in some real publications, and revived a little by sloppy online writers) to not just apply lower case to short prepositions but to all short words (other than "I"). So we'll encounter it at times. But it's so kooky, we should not acknowledge it in our own style except in the rare cases when an overwhelming majority of WP:INDY sources also do. That will nearly never be for works (if anything, it'll be the opposite: overcapitalization, as in Spider-Man: Far From Home), but it won't be unheard of for organizational and product trademarks.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Ultimately, it came down to who could provide more WP:RELIABLESOURCES that confirmed whether "Apathy Is Boring" or "Apathy is Boring" is the organization's WP:COMMONNAME, regardless of how the organization styles its own name. Also, as with other one-shot WP:RMs, such as the lengthy and impassioned Talk:A Boy Was Born#Requested move (November 2013), it comes down to WP:CONSENSUS or, more specifically, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which is dependent upon the number of users willing to show up and then willing to devote time as well as energy to debating the fine points involved. Extended arguments most frequently center around national pride/nationalism and/or linguistics such as at Band of Outsiders/Bande à part (film), Oleh Sentsov/Oleg Sentsov or Kyiv/Kiev. On the other hand, when no one cares, such as at Talk:Izzet Mehmed#Requested move 4 July 2020, the move is made without even a vote. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
That summary matches my experiences, except I would add that the most common source of drawn out trouble is probably the specialized-style fallacy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to country

Any thoughts on this move to Welcome to Country? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

It looks like unnecessary capitalization to me (cf. coming of age, ribbon-cutting ceremony, bar mitzvah, etc.). But, it will probably come down to what the majority of reliable sources are doing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

River

Should it be Sarasvati River, as it is now, or "Sarasvati river"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:NCRIVER (first paragraph) would suggest that capitalized "River" is the better choice. Deor (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

University degrees

Should these be capitalised? This guideline article implies not, but Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)/Archive 4#Formal job titles, formal certification titles, and degree names seems to imply that there is not consensus, but the articles on degrees do capitalise, and MOS:1STOCC gives an example. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Capitalisation of dance names

It seems clear from MOS:DANCECAPS that dance names are to be lowercased, but I want to double check before moving pages. There are a lot of dances at uppercase titles (e.g. all of the ones in Template:Dance in India, some of Category:Dances of Japan, and the non-English words in List of Indonesian dances.) If you care please discuss this here. —  AjaxSmack  16:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Capitalization of mine in mine names

What should be the convention for the names of mines (e.g. Meliadine Gold Mine or Meliadine gold mine?) The current situation is basically random: the word "mine" in some categories tend to be capitalized, while in others tend to be lowercase. The policy WP:NCCAPS generally implies that words should be lowercase when they are neither proper nouns nor the first word in an article name. So it seems to me the question hinges on whether the word "mine" and the name of resources like "copper" "gold" "silver" etc. count as proper nouns in this context. I think it is clear the names of companies/organizations (e.g. Kumba Iron Ore, Cu-River Mining) are proper nouns and should remain upper case, so let's focus the discussion on the names of individual mines here.

There was an old discussion in the mostly inactive WP:MINING about 12 years ago, but they never established consensus. On one hand, similar kinds of cases of proper noun + specifier are capitalized (New York + city = New York City, Mississippi + river = Mississippi River). However, academic journals/geological surveys tend to use lower case more often when talking about mines, and treating them as a common noun seems more natural to me. My reccomendation is for lowercase, but any consensus would be good here, so I would endorse either standard as long as we can clarify the situation. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 06:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Forbes72, I don't have a strong preference, but I do work on mine articles and have mostly kept the words 'copper mine' etc lowercase. There doesn't appear to be a consistent convention. (Similarly, 'oil field' and 'gas field' are somewhat more frequently lowercase, but not consistently so). I think if consistency matters to you, it's probably less work to establish a convention for lowercase, because it's slightly more common. Hope this helps! Thanks! Larataguera (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I posted a note at WP:MINING Larataguera (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

"Acronyms in page titles" is mis-placed in an MoS page

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#"Acronyms in page titles" is mis-placed in an MoS page – proposal to move MoS section to a naming-convention guideline (either its own or as a section merge into WP:NCCAPS).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Capitalisation again

Why are a lot of editors moving articles, especially British English articles to American convention titling? Govvy (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any examples to help editors understand what you're raising? ~TPW 15:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
@True Pagan Warrior: I was interested in the discussion at Talk:1872 FA Cup Final and felt that the style guide feels somewhat bias towards an American style different from Oxford English Capitalise the first word of the title, and all words within the title except articles (a/ an/the), prepositions (to/on/for etc) and conjunctions (but/and/or etc). However there seems to be a move to change British English articles away from Oxford/Cambridge title style to the American approach which has me on the fence. Govvy (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not use what you're calling "title style" for the titles of articles or for the section headings in them. We use sentence-style capitalization, as is made clear at WP:LOWERCASE, WP:NCCAPS, and probably elsewhere. (By the way, in your quotation from the Oxford style guide above, it's referring to the treatment of titles of works mentioned in prose, not to the titling of articles in an encyclopedia. Our guidelines for that, in MOS:CT, are quite similar to Oxford's.) Deor (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and it has nothing at all to do with "American" versus "British".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Wars

I want to establish a general rule for when we capitalize wars on Wikipedia. I found 5 different stylebooks and reviewed what they had to say:

5 different style guides

Always uppercase wars if referring to a specific conflict.[1]

Always uppercase all historical events.[2]

Always uppercase all major wars and revolutions except for recent unresolved conflicts (South Sudanese civil war (it was unresolved at the time)).[3]

Never uppercase wars (including the first world war and American civil war) with 3 exceptions (The Thirty Years' War, the War of Independence, and the Wars of the Roses).[4]

Never uppercase wars (including the first world war and hundred years war) with one exception (War of Jenkins' Ear).[5]

References

  1. ^ AP Stylebook. New York: The Associated Press. 2016. p. 291. ISBN 978-0-917360-63-3. Retrieved 21 June 2023.
  2. ^ The Canadian Press stylebook: a guide for writers and editors. Toronto, Ontario: The Canadian Press. 2017. p. 273. ISBN 978-0-920009-54-3. Retrieved 21 June 2023.
  3. ^ The Chicago Manual of Style (17th ed.). University of Chicago Press. 31 May 2017. pp. 525–526. ISBN 978-0-226-28705-8. Retrieved 21 June 2023.
  4. ^ The Economist style guide. New York: PublicAffairs. 2015. p. 157. ISBN 978-1-61039-538-0. Retrieved 21 June 2023.
  5. ^ Marsh, David (2004). The Guardian stylebook. London: Guardian. ISBN 978-1-84354-991-8. Retrieved 21 June 2023.

I think that last 2 are unacceptable based on our current practices, but I do lean towards what the AP had to say on the matter (though it is too vague for things like the Wars of the Roses). What do people here think about potentially adding a section about wars (including civil wars) generally being uppercase? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC on Capitalizing after dash in sports article name

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RFC on capitalizing after dash in sports article names. That RfC really should have been opened here, since it's entirely about capitalization in article titles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC on capitalization after a colon or dash

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § RfC on capitalization after a colon or dash. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)