Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 35

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

It is my recollection that the section "Proper names" was merged into MOS:CAPS from a WP page of the same name not all that long ago. Regardless of the semantics, it is a common WP practice to refer to words and phrases that are consistently capitalised as proper nouns|names as defined in the lead of MOS:CAPS. I would observe that the section heading may (and has) been construed to create an exception to the lead definition/criteria. I would therefore propose removing this section from MOS:CAPS but retaining the sub-sections therein and have boldly done so per this edit. I would move the associated shortcuts to the lead but I have not done this yet. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

And I've undone your edit. It's hard to see this as anything other than an attempt to get around points made at requested moves/move reviews, like the one we're both currently participating in. -- Vaulter 15:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

And by the way, the bit about proper names has been on this page in some form since at least 2016 (I didn't bother going further back than 500 revisions) [1]. And the merger you referenced occurred in 2018 [2]. -- Vaulter 15:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized. And how do we (WP) determine what is a proper name? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Ideally, by understanding Proper noun and the discussion of capitalization there. Peter coxhead (talk)

Pro-capitalization editors like to pretend as if there were some ironclad rule distinguishing proper nouns from commons and dictating which should be capitalized. That’s not the case as the Proper noun article itself observes: Although these rules have been standardized, there are enough gray areas that it can often be unclear both whether an item qualifies as a proper name and whether it should be capitalized: "the Cuban missile crisis" is often capitalized ("Cuban Missile Crisis") and often not, regardless of its syntactic status or its function in discourse. Most style guides give decisive recommendations on capitalization, but not all of them go into detail on how to decide in these gray areas if words are proper nouns or not and should be capitalized or not.

The point is that the distinction is often arbitrary, and “but that’s a proper noun!” isn’t an argument against an MOS rule that says a particular category of phrase (e.g.,

MOS:JOBTITLES) is treated as a common noun. Wallnot (talk

) 17:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The subsection doesn't really fit into MOS:CAPS. We could very reasonably mention how to determine if something is a proper noun, but the subsection doesn't do that, and instead mostly focuses on what name to use for things, which is not a CAPS issue. I support removal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

About two years ago, the pro-lower case editors began pushing & getting consensus on quite a few topics. At some point, there has to be a line that shouldn't be crossed. We can't lower case everything. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The line is what a substantial majority of reliable secondary sources capitalize, as the guideline itself says. Wallnot (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

No doubt, eventually attempts will be made to lower-case entirely, article titles. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

That would be silly, and wouldn't stand a chance. I've been accused of wanting to stamp out all capitalization, but actually I only favor removing capitalization that's inconsistent with our P&G. I think sentence case (initial cap) is fine for titles, and of course caps are "required" where sources cap consistently. Dicklyon (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Give it time. A wave can get out of control. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, this push to reduce excess capitalization didn't start 2 years ago. I've been at it for nearly 15 years, I think, and in the great majority of cases I get more thanks than pushback. Today I got this nice note. Dicklyon (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I only hope you're correct, that there'll continue to be some limits. GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It's important to remember that whether something is a

The borderline between what is and is not a proper name/capitalized is wavy and frayed. Chevrolet is a division of a company and named after Louis Chevrolet. Camaro is a designation for a series of designs and convention has decided that we capitalize those, though I can imagine that could have gone another way. Proper adjectives like Roman are a thing and in English are capitalized. The edit referenced above added "brand names"; that seems unnecessary as brands are already proper nouns. I think it would be better if ", such as proper names, demonyms and brand names" were removed as "terms that would ordinarily be capitalized in running prose" is sufficient. I don't agree that proper name and capitalization are two different questions, but I agree that it's hard to come up with a clear definition of proper noun that always works and everyone agrees on. On Wikipedia we've come up with the compromise: "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia". That doesn't always come out the way I think it should, but it's an effective compromise. SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia" is the most meaningful interpretation/compromise for WP purposes. I know some editors, such as CinderellaNNN, like to get all theoretical about what's a proper name and what's not, but I value data over theory. I agree with them on removing that odd paragraph. Dicklyon (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree on that language. This may call into question Wikipedia's common sense approach to astronomical names, such as Sun, Moon, Solar System, Earth, etc., which are not consistently capitalized in sources but are logically capitalized on Wikipedia. Would this override consensus on the beforementioned Cuban Missile Crisis? Language should reflect that there are exceptions. And an interesting question at Kill Bill, is the character The Bride lowercased "the" or uppercased "The" in running text? Would the proposed language here take precedence in character proper names such as this? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's funny that what to you is "logically" done on WP is the opposite of what many style guides specifically say (e.g. NASA's). To me, terms like Universe, Solar System, etc. (also Cuban Missile Crisis) seem inappropriately over-capitalized on WP compared to how they are treated in our reliable sources. Dicklyon (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

And so it goes, and maybe why you are trying to put this new language into the MOS to achieve these ends. Universe isn't included in caps, but Solar System and, how do you put it? etc.? (Sun, Moon, Earth), and you toss in the Cuban Missile Crisis, would be overturned by this new language, well, that's an overreach of well-established Wikipedia norms on Sun, Moon, Earth, and Solar System. Please explain, in 6 million words or less, how Sun, Earth, and Moon are not proper names? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

NASA says that when you put "the" in front of "sun" or "moon" it's not a proper name. Maybe that's too strict. The big problem with those is that they're supposed to be considered proper names in astronomical contexts, but not when you say "the sun rose" or "the moon is full tonight", which are about our perceptions of them on the ground; yet all too often editors claim those are astronomical contexts and cap them. Universe and solar system are not generally capped per NASA, but are per lots of WP editors. And Cuban missile crisis is way more often lowercase in sources until recent years, when it's likely influenced by WP's over-capitalization, where it's been capped since this undiscussed over-capping edit of 2003 that came with this counter-factual explanation; before my time. Still, is not yet approaching "consistently capitalized" in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course uppercase doesn't apply to perceptions (the sun rose), that's not the point here. The proper name of actual physical objects is where Wikipedia has it right and many sources inexplicably have it wrong (Scientific American for one). The nuclear furnace in the sky that fuels all life, Wikipedia says that it has a proper name. And the large rocky body circling the Earth (or would you argue that it is lowercased 'earth', and, if so, does not a planet itself deserve a proper name?), maybe that should have a proper name? Wikipedia gives it one, others don't. If you argue that Wikipedia should lowercase 'sun' as the star's proper name, or lowercase Solar System when referring to the specific solar system of Earth's nearest star, then there is something basically wrong with strict MOS language that would codify that viewpoint. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I would have thought the other way around – that "the Sun" is a proper name (when referring to the sun that is in our solar system), while "a sun" (among many suns) is a common noun. I'm tempted to say that NASA is an organization of scientists, bureaucrats and engineers – not linguists, but that would be a rude thing to say, so I will not say it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Brand names are not proper names (in general). A

Oil of Olay are not even countable things, much less unique referents. Chevrolet may be a proper name when referring to a particular person or a division of a company, but not when referring to a type of automobile. Types of things and categories of things are common nouns, not proper nouns. Linguistically speaking, brand names are not proper names. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk

) 07:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Nope, that's philosophically speaking, not linguistically speaking. You're confusing

Proper name (linguistics) (i.e. Proper noun) with Proper name (philosophy). Cadillac and other trademarked brand names are proper names/nouns in linguistics terms.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  19:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Apparently that odd paragraph that Cinderella removed came in via a "merge" from a page that was "redundant, poorly maintained, and rarely cited", in this edit of 1 November 2018. It's time to "maintain" it into something more sensible and less conflicting, or remove it. There's no need to talk about conflict here, and no need for an alternate obscure buried subjective criterion to what we've always had in

MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk

) 04:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The present language seems fine, and at least the language should keep the concept of "most familiar name in English" in some form, as often most recognizable will not be consistently applied in sources but will be used by many sources in a recognizable way. No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater here, as your approach to the commonsense use of uppercase that Wikipedia uses for some proper names (Sun, Moon, Solar System, etc.) is concerning and is at least kept in check by language such as already present here. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

p.s. Dicklyon, you imply that this change removing "most familiar name" would enable a relook at the casing of Cuban Missile Crisis? This n-gram showing uppercasing by far the most familiar name for Cuban Missile Crisis would be tossed aside because it is not "consistent"? Keeping "most familiar name" in the language seems imperative when things like this arise. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"Most familiar" is just something to argue about. But if that's what was argued to keep Cuban Missile Crisis capped in spite of evidence that sources mostly don't, then maybe. I don't see how "Cuban missile crisis" can be seen as less familiar than "Cuban Missile Crisis"; it reads the same. Here is a better look at the 21st century trend to slightly more capitalization, much of which is actually in titles and citations, not in sentences; in sentences, which is what we care about, it's always less capping than what the ngram stats show (as you well know). It was unilaterally capped in 2003; we had a consensus to move to lowercase in 2012, and to move back up in 2015; so, sure time to look again maybe. Dicklyon (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Clarify: Are some of you suggesting that the page title Cuban Missile Crisis, be changed to Cuban missile crisis? GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It's an example of what excessive adherence to the word "consistently" would bring. N-grams show by far that the most familiar casing for Cuban Missile Crisis is uppercasing, but, since it's not 100% consistent Dicklyon would want to downcase it. The 2015 RM handled that, and no, "looking" at it again would not change the result (at a minimum it would be decided as no consensus and retain the status quo) but would only cost editors much time, slings and arrows, and whirlygigs of effort to play an old game which is still controversary played too much on Wikipedia. Removing language from this page which assures that the most familiar name in English deserves a role in deciding proper names will likely spill over into many areas to address or ignore past decisions such as Cuban Missile Crisis. Nothing is broken, so leaving the language on this page seems the best choice. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not a question of 100%; it's not even a majority of sources that cap Cuban Missile Crisis. The caps numbers crept up mainly from the many citations to titles with Cuban Missile Crisis, but still not to even two-thirds. Nothing close to "consistently". That's broken, but I realize a lot of editors prefer it that way, and it's a silly distraction to the issue here (it's the example from Proper noun#Modern English capitalization of proper nouns, and a topic that Randy and I have had spirited discussions on in the past, which is why he's provoking me about it). The language about familiarity is taken care of already by COMMONNAME (which is not about styling, just names). Here's a clearer view of usage stats, limited to probably a sentence context. Even if the very recent blip was real, it wouldn't suddenly have made the capped form more recognizable, and wouldn't explain why editors decided to cap it in 2003 and 2015. Dicklyon (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

What's interesting is the number of references that predate the crisis itself. What, I wonder, was the Cuban Missile Crisis being talked about in 1800? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

That's not really so interesting; they are very few, and such things are generally attributable to metadata errors, possibly from OCR errors, and/or from the smoothing; see hits through 1960. Dicklyon (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

This thread would appear to be misconstruing the reasonable meaning and intent of the phrase "most familiar" in the fuller context of what is actually written.

In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized. Such names are frequently a source of conflict, especially when different cultures, using different names, "claim" someone or something as their own. Wikipedia does not adjudicate such disputes, but as a general rule uses the name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English. Alternative names are often given in parentheses for greater clarity and fuller information. (emphasis added)

The text, read in its proper and full context is dealing with alternative names such as Mumbai and Bombay. It is clearly not dealing with differences in capitalisation such as Cuban missile crisis or Cuban Missile Crisis which are the same name but with different capitalisation. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Please read the first sentence of the paragraph. It, hence the paragraph, deals directly with the capitalization of proper names, which would include 'Cuban Missile Crisis'. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Well that's the point—asserting without evidence that Cuban missile crisis is a proper name doesn't make it so, with or without the sentence you point to. Wallnot (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized. Such [proper] names are frequently a source of conflict, especially when different cultures, using different [proper] names, "claim" someone or something as their own. Wikipedia does not adjudicate such disputes, but as a general rule uses the [proper] name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English. Alternative [proper] names are often given in parentheses for greater clarity and fuller information. The first sentence and the start of the second (Such names) establish that in the rest of the paragraph name is referring to a proper name (ie we are using a shortened form of the fuller noun phrase proper name). The first sentence acknowledges we capitalise proper names but does not intrinsically tell us anything else about proper names. In full, the paragraph is dealing with alternative proper names such as Mumbai and Bombay and not with whether something is or isn't a proper name - ie we must first determine if we are dealing with a proper name. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's be honest about this. It's gonna come down to an article-by-article basis. One RM at a time. No blanket rule. GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Or is it that our blanket rule is "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized"? To follow that rule requires data collection and human judgement, so it's a rule that requires discussion on an "article-by-article basis". SchreiberBike | ⌨  13:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

OP comment: This discussion has substantially diverged from the substantive question. Peter coxhead would suggest we (WP) determine what is a proper name by understanding Proper noun and the discussion of capitalization there. Reading proper noun, it tells us that proper names are not descriptive of the referent, they cannot normally be modified by articles or another determiner (except perhaps the) and, while they have a specific referent, this is not a defining property since the definite article (the) used with a common name also has a specific referent. Reading and understanding proper noun would cause us to downcase the titles of many articles. The proper name article then becomes a bit inconsistent and acknowledges the grey areas which are the crux of most capitalisation discussions. It is of little help in resolving these.

Per SchreiberBike, we rely on the guidance of the lead to determine what is "conventionally capitalised" - and thereby resolve these grey areas. Randy Kryn would opine that important things deserve a proper name. This is an argument of capitalisation for emphasis, distinction or significance and we have specific advice at

Regardless though,

Substantive question: the substantive question is whether we should delete the section heading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proper names (and the paragraph immediately following) or not. If we did, the subsections therein would then move up a level. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, delete that paragraph that crept in from a merge of an unmaintained page. It just sows confusion. Dicklyon (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, and this should probably be a full RfC for such a major change. That language has been MOS language for a long time (not sure how long, but I've often used it in discussions), and changing it seems a site-wide topic. There are about half a dozen never-cappers who will discuss it, and hopefully much of the discussion will be on those very commonsense-filled words about the most familiar name in English. As for Cinderella157's assumptions about me, well, what I actually think is that important or not, things which are individual things, and so named as individual things, should be uppercased. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  By "never cappers" I assume you mean me and others who abide by the top-line message at

  MOS:CAPS: "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." I think "never cappers" is an unfair and biased way to refer to people who respect this longstanding consensus to not cap things not consistently capped in sources, a position that is only confused by the introduction of this alternative subjective criterion of "most familiar to readers". Dicklyon (talk

  ) 02:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Randy, isn't that paragraph telling us (paraphrasing): if something has more than one proper name, we use the [proper] name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English? Isn't that very advice covered at

WP:USEENGLISH? How is the paragraph in question, when read in full, relevant to this particular page? Anybody can start an RfC if they wish. Cinderella157 (talk

) 01:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Ping Randy Kryn, since you reverted the change here. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I reverted the removal of the portion in question because this discussion hasn't reached a consensus (and likely needs an RM). The main sentence for me is the most familiar name in English bit, which would include casing as well as proper name (see the discussion above about the titling of the Cuban Missile Crisis). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi

MOS:CAPS. Disputes over capitalisation are never about whether we should capitalise a proper name but whether a name is actually a proper name. Cinderella157 (talk

) 01:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

No, not the same at all, Cinderella157 (and Fyunck(click)). WP:COMMONNAME says that the proper name needs a "significant majority" of sources, and some lowercase or uppercase advocates say that number has to be quite a high percentage - in other words the present COMMONNAME criteria sets a high bar, and that high bar has been used in RM discussions. Although the MOS page uses "consistently" it also contains the present language under discussion, which sets a lower and fairer bar, one I've often used in RM discussions (striking out wording not really needed in the quote): "In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized. Such names are frequently a source of conflict, especially when different cultures, using different names, "claim" someone or something as their own. Wikipedia does not adjudicate such disputes, but as a general rule uses the name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English." See, it doesn't say "significant majority", but the lower and commonsense bar of "the name which is likely to be the most familiar to readers of English". Big difference. A name shouldn't have an overwhelming majority to qualify as the common name, but one that's just the most recognizable by readers. Cuban Missile Crisis, uppercased, exists as more recognizable than Cuban missile crisis, yet in this discussion alone there have been statements that that page should again be lowercased. Retaining the "most familiar to readers of English" language acts to augment and protect the present title of that page and others like it, so keeping it seems essential to tone-down and clarify the definition of the "significant majority" wording of WP:COMMONNAME and "consistently" of MOS. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME and the advice of the subject paragraph. Cinderella157 (talk

) 10:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Do it up, the way you all think is best. I'm just no longer interested in debating Manuals of Style, these days. GoodDay (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - This does sound like an end-around by the never-cappers. This would be a huge deal that would require a full RfC. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  Please do not bring a battle-ground attitude and fight-picking namecalling to these discussions. You know better.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  As I just posted above, isn't this paragraph telling us: "if something has more than one proper name, we use the [proper] name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English?" and that this is covered by

  WP:COMMONNAME. Why then do you see this as being a huge deal? Cinderella157 (talk

  ) 01:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  No, it is not the same as WP:COMMONNAME language, by far. What WP:COMMONNAME are you reading? See my reply to you just above. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Hi

  WP:COMMONNAME has any applicability in determining capitalisation. Are you seeing something that I am missing? Cinderella157 (talk

  ) 07:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment As an alternative, why not split it off into its own page, i.e., revert the merge between the separate proper names page and CAPS, so we retain the guidance but still help clarify the guideline? Wallnot (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  Because it was merged out of existence as a separate page for good reason. There's nothing about such a merge process, however, to suggest that every single segment in both (or more) original pages must be preserved in the merged result, especially after later discussion shows something lacking about a particular segment.

  However, I've re-read the material, and it's quick to go through: "In English,

  MOS:SIGCAPS).
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

   😼  19:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Consider me a consistency capper ;) Whatever yas decide, please apply it as consistently across as many articles, as possible. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I do think there needs to be a section about link capitalization here. I can add it, but… any input? 21:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac Henni (talk • contribs)

The text in a link should not be done any differently if it's a link or not. Might be worth stating if we haven't already. The non-case-sensitivity of initial letters of titles, plus the use of sentence-case titles, makes this work easily. Dicklyon (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Per here. -

See

WP:MARINE. Wallnot (talk

) 23:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Saw it. That's why I posted this here. It appears that other sources, besides the CMoS, state that "Marine", (as is U.S. Marine) should be capitalized. -

wolf

21:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, some sources capitalize the term and Wikipedia doesn't (under most circumstances). (I personally haven't seen what is at that NYT link, due to its paywall.) See also the previous fairly recent discussion at

Corps of Royal Marines (RM), also known as the Royal Marines Commandos, are the UK's ..." —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk

) 03:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a lost cause to get ppl on here to change WP's MOS on Marine capitalization. A simple Google search shows a plethora of examples of Marine being capitalized in multiple professional style guides. The naysayers' main argument is, it is a "conceit." Conceit or not is irrelevant. The primary reason most professional style guides capitalize Marine is has actual utility: to differentiate the noun (Marine - servicemember) from the adjective (marine - of, found in, or produced by the sea). Also, it is proper English. I digress. It's me...Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 13:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

So, under that reasoning, all nouns that also have an identical adjectival form should be capitalised to show they're nouns?! A Vegetarian as against vegetarian, maybe! And you say "it is proper English"! No, it isn't. It is, as has been pointed out numerous times, a military conceit, just as capitalising ranks (and pretty much everything else, as the military tends to do) is. I speak as ex-military, incidentally, not as any kind of opponent. I know what they're like! There is no more reason to capitalise marine in English than there is is to capitalise soldier, sailor or airman. Many would like to capitalise all of these, as well as, for instance, Police Officer, as though they have some difference from other occupations. In the English language, they simply don't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Your argument is what's known as a "faulty analogy fallacy." Anyway, relax your panties. As I said, it's not gonna happen, anyway. You can rest easy knowing that you won't have to see Marine capitalized. Except here. In my statement. Where Marine is capitalized. (I'm just kidding. Really though, you should lighten up a bit; it's not that serious). It's me...Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 14:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how it's a fallacy in any way. Marines are called marines because they're... marine (i.e. "of, found in, or produced by the sea", as you say)! No, it's not that serious, which is why I'm sick of having to revert it in articles by editors (usually new) who come along and claim it's correct English! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

You have two options: 1) Accept that in American English, "Marine" is capitalized (and we all know where you stand on that). 2) Unless you can get the US military to change its MOS, and convince unknown countless reporting agencies who do consider Marine a proper noun to not capitalize Marine, then I would suggest you're just going to have to accept that you will keep having the same argument until the end of time. As an admin, the MOS for WP is clear when it comes to capitalizing Marine, so you should enforce the lower-case "m" rule. However, also as an admin, you have to understand that it is not uncommon in American English to capitalize Marine, so I would caution against getting emotionally involved in disputes like you have here. If When it comes up again, just understand that it is written like that in some English-speaking countries, but not on WP. Then direct them to

MOS:MARINE. Cheers! It's me...Sallicio!

^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 15:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

It's also not uncommon in British English to capitalise Marine (or Lieutenant or Sergeant or any other military term). That doesn't mean Wikipedia does it or correct English does it. This military over-capitalisation is not restricted to American English and the editors who oppose it are not restricted to non-Americans (or to those who are anti-military). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I've corrected it with the edit summary "See

MOS:MARINE" and usually that takes care of it. Lots of people get it wrong, but we make it right. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 

20:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Treating "marine" as special could produce phrases like ""At the dinner event there were three sailors and two Marines." That would be rather odd. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The NYT style guide is divergent even from other US news style guides, and is not evidentiary of anything other than that publication's editors' personal preferences. Literally nothing (zero) in MoS is taken from the NYT style guide (or ever will be, probably).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a pretty interesting article, though, about the process of having and changing one's own style guide. Dicklyon (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, news-outlet style guides are not usually of high quality. And employers/publicists/advertisers are guilty of mass boosterism when it comes to occupation names. "Marines" capped would be a slippery slope down to the city's Garbage Collectors. You really want that? Tony (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I would like to have clear consensus on how article titles should be added in ```cite``` templates. Currently, there is no explicit guideline, which I think should change. Any input would be appreciated. 21:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac Henni (talk • contribs)

MOS:TITLECAPS seems to cover the matter. Is there any case you've run into that's not treated there? (And please sign your posts with four, rather than five, tildes so that people will know who you are.) Deor (talk

) 22:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm mostly talking about _external_ articles, ie, articles in refs. Maccore Henni user talk Respond using tb, please. 17:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

There should not be an explicit guideline. The capitalization of titles in citations should be consistent within a single individual Wikipedia article, but

WP:CITEVAR is clear that consistency of citation style cannot be expected from one article to the next. The capitalization style that I prefer is: Sentence case (only the first word and proper nouns capitalized) for titles of journal papers, conference proceedings papers, chapters and sections within books, but title case (all significant words capitalized) for titles of books, journals, and book series. Variations from this style are common; I have frequently seen title case for individual journal and conference articles, or occasionally instead sentence case for book titles. The language of the title may also make a difference; often one sees foreign-language titles capitalized according to the conventions of their own language instead of English. —David Eppstein (talk

) 18:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and I also prefer sentence case for articles and title case for books. I often see refs where all-caps headlines are copied that way, and that's really not OK. I convert them to sentence case or title case when I see them. Dicklyon (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

My personal tendency for citations is to use the capitalization that was used by the cited source, unless it's all-caps. I reduce all-caps, but am not especially consistent about whether I convert it to sentence case or title case. For promotional prefixes and suffixes that are not really part of the cited title, like "EXCLUSIVE:" or "WATCH VIDEO:", I sometimes just delete them and sometimes I reduce the case. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Opencooper They should be retargeted to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Academic titles and degrees. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Chris the speller and Sdkb. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Retargeted them to where Ahecht pointed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)