Talk:Have Doughnut

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Nevada (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nevada, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NevadaWikipedia:WikiProject NevadaTemplate:WikiProject NevadaNevada articles

Caps[edit]

@Anthony Appleyard and Station1: This article was moved to HAVE DOUGHNUT (i.e. all caps), after discussion of a related article at Talk:HAVE DRILL § Caps, and significant research of primary and reasonably popular and reliable secondary sources. I should have linked to the discussion here during the move.

P.S. I didn't object immediately because I didn't get a notification about the revert. Was I supposed to? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AlanM1: Lowercase with initial capital, unless each case is a proven acronym. Uppercasing them all may be CIA and/or military official, but it is not Wikipedia official as far as I know. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Anthony. The relevant guideline is WP:ALLCAPS. Since these are not acronyms, house style is to use title case. This is also the usual style of at least some independent reliable sources such as The Guardian. If you want wider input, please feel free to request a move. Station1 (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to me that the MOS is littered with exceptions that defer to the style used by the party that names something (i.e. primary sources) or subject-specific secondary sources (as opposed to general news sources). My concern is that people that are used to reading about the subject will find that it looks odd and unprofessional because the CIA, respected books, and sites use all-caps. Their reasoning for this style seems simple and valid – the names are often common nouns so some form of distinction helps the reader parse it as an operation name, not just the common meaning of the words.
If nothing else, since they are proper (compound) nouns, it seems they should be title-case, not lower-case, right?
I'll RM or WT:MILMOS when I've got less on my plate. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My impression of MOS is different, MOS:TM for example: "When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should examine styles already in use by independent sources. From among those, choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner". Definitely agree that these are proper nouns, though, so title case is appropriate. Station1 (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:HAVE DRILL#CAPS?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]