Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 → Archive 20

Composition titles

The stated (and rather common sense) purpose of our capitalization guidelines as laid out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) is that "because credibility is a primary objective in the creation of any reference work, and because Wikipedia strives to become a leading (if not the leading) reference work in its genre, formality and an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility." However, an issue contrasting this goal and our section of this page on composition titles has come up frequently at requested move discussions for songs, films, books, and other works. Recent discussions such as Talk:I Like It Like That, Talk:On a Night Like This have raised this issue, but it's been going on for a while, as I can also find past discussions at Talk:Nocturnal after John Dowland or Talk:One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (novel)#Article name , along with numerous others. In these cases, the biggest worry seems to be that the MOS guidelines are not encouraging credibility, since they are not following their goal of an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre.

If Billboard is using a style, and Rolling Stone or the books written that discuss a song, or Spin or The New York Review of Books or just the bulk of reliable sourcing in general largely use the official title, which has been chosen by the work's creator is it really common sense for us to be saying we shouldn't be following the sources here in order to somehow adhere to conventions and gain credibility? Wikipedia is a unique construct in that our work is so clearly tied and based off of reliable sourcing about the subject -- making us stand out and go against the grain here just doesn't make much sense.

Now, I'm absolutely not suggesting we scrap the section. I think it helps to have a general sense of the usual or common standards for English composition titles, especially for cases where sourcing varies and our only indication of an official title might be something like stylized cover art (a name like BOB goes to the sTORE) or something. But clearly this section is different from something like animal scientific names, where there are rules that are absolutely official, widely used, and must be followed. What is the best solution to address the issue that the section seems to often line up neither with consensus, official titles, common usage in reliable or official sourcing, and our titling guideline's stated goals?--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Perhaps, however, the solution could be very simple. Adding something to the top of the section noting that in general, Wikipedia strives to adhere to reliable and credible sources, but that there are standard formats that have become common which can be used as guidance (or something better worded than that), would allow us to hold ourselves to a credible standard while still including the common sense logic that we should be following the bulk of reliable sourcing.
  • If there are individual words or points in the section, however, that actually are not truly standard and widely accepted and used formats in official and reliable sourcing, perhaps these points need to be addressed.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I think that we have a house style and we should try to just apply it consistently (in the absence of something special that is exceptional about a particular topic), rather than demand a strong case-by-case local consensus about whether to follow the guideline or not for each individual article (unless the guideline is changed, in which case we should apply the new guideline consistently). In regard to Talk:One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (novel), there is some language in MOS:CT about phrasal verbs that may mean that its capitalization is correct. It appears that much of the problem concerns the four-letter rule that says that "like" should be in lowercase when used as a preposition. Changing the guideline to capitalize four-letter prepositions might be worth considering, since some other publications seem to follow that style.
—BarrelProof (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment. I may as well go ahead and cite my most recent closes here: "strongly suggest clarification of the relationship between WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MOSCAPS. This has been a recurring problem lately in requested moves and requires that we get beyond local consensus and look at the root of the problem. One solution would seem to be adding an explicit statement in WP:MOSCAPS that common name does not imply common style, and that the MOS should be used to determine style (including capitalization) in article titles. The other solution would seem to be adding an explicit direction that the style guide is only to be used for titles in cases in which the most common stylization of the title is unclear, which would be closer to the way we negotiate WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The final two sections of WT:MOSCAPS are currently attempts to clarify this exact problem, but have not received replies or yet established consensus." Unless and until it is made explicit that common name does not imply common style in the guideline, editors will continue to oppose such moves per WP:COMMONNAME, and also argue that WP:COMMONNAME trumps WP:MOSCAPS because WP:AT is policy. The closes of the discussions do conflict with WP:MOSCAPS, but do not conflict with WP:COMMONNAME, and to close them in the other direction would also have been contrary to policy under the current setup. I would point out that I have closed requests in the other direction as "no consensus" on the same grounds, because the guidance remains unclear (e.g. Talk:Do It like a Dude). Dekimasuよ! 22:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Well put. I may as well bring in a remark I previously made about quotations. In my view, a composition title (or the title of a referenced work) is very similar to a quotation. It is therefore useful to see our MOS:QUOTE guideline, which says "Typographical conformity / A quotation is not a facsimile, and in most cases it is not desirable to duplicate the original formatting. Formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment provided that doing so will not change or obscure the meaning of the text; this practice is universal among publishers. These are alterations which make no difference when the text is read aloud, such as: Changing capitalization so that sentences begin with capital letters and do not have unnecessary capitals in the middle ..." My reading of this is that the styling of composition titles (and referenced works) should generally be "adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment". —BarrelProof (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
If consensus for that can be established here, I think it will be necessary to make this explicit at WP:AT, WP:NCCAPS, and here. (WT:AT seems to show that other editors are not sure about WP:MOSCAPS itself, and maybe switching to four letters would get around the "like" problem.) One way or another, with guidance written into the policy/guidelines all such moves can be treated as uncontroversial and we can get on with other matters. Dekimasuよ! 00:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
What happened to discussing this issue at WP:VPP? The forum is general, and too many possibilities are mind-boggling to know where we can discuss this matter. --George Ho (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've left a note at WT:AT to come here. I'd like to think we can just hash it out. Dekimasuよ! 00:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I also think it might be helpful to point out that I have made a majority of all closes on requested moves over the last month; once again, I haven't been going out of my way to pick out moves related to capitalization of prepositions and close them a certain way. Dekimasuよ! 00:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I have done similar requests before. "was" vs "Was" resolved simply in Talk:A Boy Was Born, but one editor was against capitalizing "Was". I didn't realize that conflict can extend to prepositions and conjunctions. I don't get the evolution (or de-evolution) of English language. Chinese language doesn't deal with capitalization; well. grammar instead. --George Ho (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • We have a house style, like every reputable publisher. Tony (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Irrelevant... the question being asked is whether we should change our house style so that it does not conflict with other policies and guidelines. Blueboar (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not sensible to discuss this issue only in the context of composition titles. The same choice – common name does not imply common style versus the style guide is only to be used for titles in cases in which the most common stylization of the title is unclear – has come up again and again in other fiercely contested debates (e.g. the capitalization of the English names of species, such as birds, or the use of en-dashes rather than hyphens, such as in the names of comets). In every case in which this has been decided the first choice has been made. What makes the titles of compositions different? Peter coxhead (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I was hoping that we stick to only prepositions, but we end up discussing a broader topic, which may end up a deadlock. Speaking of prepositions, I wonder if an average reader should learn more about prepositions and conjunctions. If not, shall we capitalize "and" to make things easier for an average person? By the way, I did oppose capitalizing dot the i because of the intentions of the filmmakers. --George Ho (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Peter makes a good point... the issue isn't prepositions, but names. To be honest, I think we have been approaching this exactly backwards... worrying about the artist's intent is arguing in favor of an WP:Official name. What we should be looking at is how sources that are independent of the subject present the name. If a significant majority of independent sources all present a name with a given stylization then we know that the stylization is accepted by the wider world and is "part of the name"... if they don't, then we know what the artist wants has been rejected by the wider world. Blueboar (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Most of the comments above are already discussing common names, not "official" names. The question then becomes whether "the most common style" overrides house style. I still think the simplest solution is adding a note to WP:COMMONNAME to the effect that common name does not imply common style, and perhaps to make our rules on changing prepositions to lowercase a bit more lax so that editors are not astonished to see words like "like" in the lowercase when used as prepositions. Dekimasuよ! 01:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
How about editing the fourth paragraph of WP:COMMONNAME to read: "Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used. Note that the preference for common names does not indicate that titles should necessarily be styled as they are found in other sources. For the proper stylization of the common name, please refer to the Manual of Style." Dekimasuよ! 01:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that would be helpful. Should "stylization" be "styling"? —BarrelProof (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Should it? Wiktionary: "stylization (plural stylizations) The process or result of designing or presenting in accordance with a style" and "styling (plural stylings) Any particular form of decoration." If there is more agreement here, I suppose we need to take this back to WT:AT. Dekimasuよ! 02:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Can we start the RFC subsection then? --George Ho (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Hold on... "overrides" is the wrong way to approach this.. there is no need to "override" anything, because we can change the house style if we want to. The question is: "do we want to change the house style to better account for COMMONNAME stylizations". Blueboar (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
As for the idea of adding "Note that the preference for common names does not indicate that titles should necessarily be styled as they are found in other sources" to COMMONNAME... I would oppose. When a significant majority of sources (especially that are independent of the subject) all agree and present a name with a specific stylization... that stylization should be considered to be an accepted part of the name. So rather than change COMMONNAME to account for the MOS, it should be the other way around. The MOS needs to be changed to account for COMMONNAME. Blueboar (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, the goal should be to get a consensus on it one way or the other so that things aren't being moved back and forth due to conflicting guidance. Further up the thread, I noted both possibilities. However, I think consistency in practice across the project is a desirable goal. Wikipedia is a systematic synthesis of all that's encyclopedic out there, not a mirror of it. Dekimasuよ! 23:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
There isn't a conflict between the two unless the "common name" is interpreted as including the stylization of the name (and including capitalization in particular). That is an interpretation that does not seem to be supported by current Wikipedia guidelines expressed in several places, nor is that the convention followed by other encyclopedias or by the publishers of other highly respected reference material. It seems unlikely that this will be fundamentally changed. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Again, it's clear that what you say and what Blueboar say are the two possibilities and that you're reading WP:COMMONNAME differently. Adding language that makes the preferred reading clear is the best option. It seems like the language that needs to be made more clear is in WP:COMMONNAME, not WP:MOSCAPS. Should this be taken back to WT:AT or WP:VPP as suggested by George Ho? Dekimasuよ! 00:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
WT:AT looks appropriate for that. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
It was discussed once there, but the discussion was limited to prepositions (and conjunctions). Must we go through this again? This thread won't be archived until 120 days, i.e. four months. --George Ho (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Please see WT:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name". —BarrelProof (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization of hyphenated terms

WP:MOSCAPS currently specifies this for titles of people (my emphasis):

When an unhyphenated compound title such as vice president or chief executive officer is capitalized (unless this is simply because it begins a sentence), each word begins with a capital letter: In 1974 Vice President Ford was sworn in as the 38th president of the United States by Chief Justice Warren Burger This does not apply to unimportant words such as the "of" in White House Chief of Staff. When hyphenated, as Vice-president is in some contexts other than U.S. politics, the second (and any subsequent) elements are not capitalized.

But this for titles of works:

In hyphenated terms, capitalize each part according to the applicable rule (e.g. The Out-of-Towners).

Based on my experience, the first rule is quite old-fashioned; it's the sort of thing I might have expect to see in content from the first half of the 20th century. I think Wikipedia should use one rule for all instances where a hyphenated term is to be capitalized (other than because it's at the start of a sentence or similar) and that is to use title case. Thus "Vice-President Smith" (assuming that he's VP of some organization that hyphenates the title), "Sergeant-at-Arms Smith", "Pencil-Necked Dogbird", whatever. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

But "one rule for all instances" seems unlikely to be appropriate across composition titles and words in normal text. I don't know about the history or appropriate of these particular rules, but I'm not too surprised that they call for more uppercase in composition titles than in sentences. Dicklyon (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Titles of people

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Occupation titles regarding the need for greater clarity and enforcement regarding the capitalization (or not) of titles such as "governor of New York". Please continue the discussion there, so it happens all in one place. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "sun"

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Capitalization of "sun" which relates to the guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Celestial bodies. —sroc 💬 06:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization of Copula (linguistics)

Capitalization of copula (linguistics)

Following discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#A_Boy_was_Born, I question the advice in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Composition_titles that

"Every verb, including forms of to be (Be, Am, Is, Are, Was, Were, Been)" "should be capitalized".
  • Where did this come from?
  • I submit that the forms of "to be", when acting as a copula, are unimportant words, unlike other verbs, and capitalization confers inappropriate emphasis, making the title read funny, and not infrequently at odds with sources.
  • In actual usage, forms of "to be" are often not capitalized in title case, unlike other verbs.
  • This rule has the characteristics of a classic hypercorrection, one that assumes that all verbs are the same when this one can be different.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems plausible; but if we're going to consider changing this, it would be good to first survey some style guides and see what they recommend. Dicklyon (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
New Hart's Rules of 2005 says "Exactly which words should be capitalized in a particular title is a matter for individual judgement..." and gives an example with lowercase "is": "Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered". CMOS 14 says capitalized verbs, but I don't see anything relevant to "is". Anyone else? Dicklyon (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure.
On where did this come from? The emphatic inclusion for capitalization of all forms of "to be" was added to Wikipedia:MUSTARD by User:TUF-KAT on 15 July 2006. The text was copied to here, by User:JHunterJ on August 3 2009. I can find no previous discussion of the capitalization of forms of "to be" in titles. (Thank you BarrelProof for correction of my many typos.) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Minor comment: That's somewhat interesting, but if there was already guidance to capitalize all verbs, then making it explicit that the guidance applies to the verb "to be" is not really a change of substance – it's merely the addition of an example. (This is not an expression of an opinion about the wisdom of the guidance.) —BarrelProof (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and it appears to me that it actually didn't arrive until an edit by Dream out loud at 07:25, 3 December 2006. It's a bit tricky to trace because TUF-KAT's edit converted the page to use a Wikipedia:Transclusion, which seems to make the latest version of the "sub-page" appear when looking at old versions (as the result of a redirect at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Capitalization). —BarrelProof (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
There's also some background discussion that seems relevant to that JHunterJ edit that can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Capitalization. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again, BarrelProof. Interesting discussion, yes. Interesting summations (capitalize "stressed" words) & (composition titles, principal words). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Anecdotal, but I have never known copulas to be routinely set in lowercase in titles. I imagine the strong wording here rose from challenges like this one. I can see the rationale for lowercasing, but it seems non-standard (where did that rule come from?), and it simply looks wrong to me. But of course, there’s IDONTLIKEIT on both sides of the issue—Joe for instance thinks it looks wrong capitalized, I think it looks wrong uncapitalized. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
a star is born 1954. It is very easy to find many other examples. Copulas are often uncapitalised in title cased examples otherwise agreeing with Wikipedia MOS/CT. Not always, not never, but often. Yes, it has drawn my attention because IDONTLIKEIT. The unexpected capitalizations of "Is", when at odds with primary source usage and normal usage, grates. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
It drew my attention because I like the style the composer had published in A Boy was Born, but was told in long discussions that no matter what he wanted (and major sources for the article use), house style rules. I don't like that. (I was told readers would find it ridiculous if Wikipedia had a house style and didn't stick to it, while I expect readers to be irritated if they buy the music or a recording and see a different title than in Wikipedia.) Those voting for house style removed an image and tried to remove the line how it was published recently. German is easier. - Can we change house style to solve this, - that is the question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
They're right, house style is used for styling the titles here, and the question of capitalization of composition titles is a stylistic one. Ngram for A Boy Was Born, or A Star Is Born, and Small Is Beautiful show that they are capitalized differently in the wild. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
If they are "capitalized differently in the wild", why can't we take the published version, but disagree with the creator of what we write about? (I find it disturbing for more than a year now, and it will not go away.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The simple fact is that we will never have complete and total consistency when it comes to the capitalization of composition titles. Precisely because there is no complete consistency in the real world. Our readers will usually expect us to capitalize the name of a composition as it is styled in the sources (that is what will be most recognizable to them). This will usually be the way it is capitalized by the author/creator of the work. However, on rare occasions, the sources reject the capitalization used by the author/creator... and if enough sources do so (a significant majority), then WP:Official name, and WP:COMMONNAME come into play.
This does not mean our MOS guidance is somehow wrong ... it simply means that there are going to be exceptions to that guidance. Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
What I meant was I’ve never known an established house style to routinely set copulas in lowercase. I’m just used to seeing them capitalized in titles of things that are discussed. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I look at more guides; with the exception of New Hart's Rules which suggests flexibility, they are all like ours, specifying exactly which kinds of words to NOT capitalize, and with nothing to except "is" or "was" from capitalization. So it's fair to style that our style guidelines are pretty typical. Of course we can have exceptions when there are good reasons, such as bad press from a Star Trek Into Darkness fan mob. Dicklyon (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I would be curious to know what the official house style of the New York Times is on the capitalization of a word like "into" in titles... not saying we have to do what the NYT does... just wondering whether, when they capitalize "Into" in their movie review of "Star Trek Into Darkness", are they in compliance with their normal house style, or making an exception to it? Blueboar (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not an exception in their headline style at least, where they capitalize "all other words of four or more letters". Nice try; I'm sure if you keep looking you'll find some publisher that did it as an exception. Here's one: [1]. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't a "try" at anything... As I said, I was just curious as to whether it was in accordance to their house style or an exception to it. Thank you for clarifying. Blueboar (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Composition titles – "as"

There is a usage guide for every short word except for "as". This one always throws me off. In a title, is the word "as" capitalised or not? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This one regards "as" as a preposition. This one does not. This one says explicitly to capitalize "as". Check some more... Dicklyon (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
According to wikt:as, "as" can be an adverb, conjunction, or preposition. Our MoS says to capitalize adverbs, and not to capitalize short conjuctions and prepositions. So I suppose our MoS requires us to first figure out whether it's being used as an adverb or not, and capitalize only if the answer is "Yes". I don't think we should interpret Dick's first source as saying that "as" is always a preposition – rather, I think it is just saying not to capitalize it in the cases when it is being used as a preposition. Similarly, I think the third source is just talking about when it is being used as a subordinating conjunction (although it does say to capitalize it in that case, which differs from Wikipedia). I can't find any specific mention of "as" in Dick's second source. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that seems right. We just have to decide what it is; when it's not clear discussion can focus on that question, rather than on what the guidelines are. Good enough. Dicklyon (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization and art movements

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts has a weird subsection "Capitalization and art movements" claiming that "capitalization of art movements and art style names is a complex issue". Is it really? Why can't they follow the general WP rules stated in MOS:DOCTCAPS and MOS:GENRECAPS? Perhaps, we should make that "a simple issue" by mentioning "visual arts movements and art style names" among MOS:GENRECAPS and, maybe, giving an example in MOS:DOCTCAPS (since it already mentions "movements" in general). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should open such a discussion first at WT:Manual of Style/Visual arts before bringing it here. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I assumed that WP-wide rules and internal consistency are more important than area-specific quirks in some outside sources, and thus this issue should be discussed here instead of the individual project pages. But if the community thinks that this issue does not need general attention, we can move it to MOS:VA. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I started Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Visual_arts#Capitalization_and_art_movements there to bring it to their attention, but I believe that the main discussion should be here. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
No it should be there. The "general WP rules" (which are actually full of "area-specific quirks"), do not spring from thin air but reflect the general usage in WP:RS. In these areas the situation is some what complex. Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
This may as well be addressed in the main MoS, as I doubt that anything else will stop this drive for conformity from an editor who, so far as I know, has not yet followed Johnbod's suggestion that he look at how the terms are used in reliable sources on art (which are what any policy on usage should based on).
The Association of Art Editors Style Guide suggested by Johnbod seems like the best place to start. In the "Art movements, periods, and styles" section, "Renaissance", "Baroque", "Post-Impressionism", "Cubism", "Futurism" and various others are given as examples of terms which should be capitalised because they are "sharply delimited period titles". (Unlike in Chicago and perhaps some other guides, there's no question in this guide of these being in lowercase. The reason to follow the AAE and not Chicago et al. is that it reflects usage in the field—for my part I've just been checking the Grove Dictionary of Art, which does capitalise these movements.) For some other terms, such as "medieval", there are exceptions; the rationale given is that these are "broad periods and terms applicable to several periods". It would be pointless for me to restate everything that section says on the subject, so I suggest that anyone interested in this topic have a look at it; it would be good for some condensed form of it to appear in the MoS. Ham (talk) 09:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
X-D Do all "visual arts" editors think and behave like that?..
What the AAE Style Guide actually says is:
To the Reader: "Authors should consult with their publisher/editor before making final stylistic decisions" (that is, our MOS:CAPS cannot be just ignored).
Art movements, periods, and styles: "The question of whether to capitalize or lowercase is one of the most common in the field of art history and one of the most difficult in which to attain any agreement." (that is, not even all people "in the field" capitalize these terms), "For those who prefer to capitalize art movements, ..." (that is, they do not insist) "...remember that it takes time for a body of works to achieve capital-letter status—to undergo the kind of critical ordering and analysis that ultimately yield a definition" (that is, it can be subjective), and (surprise!) "Equally legitimate is the lowercasing of art movements." ;-)
That section is actually quite interesting and provides arguments for and against capitalization, although they lean towards capitalization of everything (including derived terms, such as adjectives and nouns for the adherents). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the section is "actually quite interesting", which is why I was suggesting that everyone read it! As you say, the argument for lowercase is given an airing:
Equally legitimate is the lowercasing of art movements. For some, it merely reflects a tendency to avoid capitalization whenever possible. [This is the position most in line with WP:MOSCAPS and Chicago] For others, however, a lowercase baroque or cubism represents an ideological stance, in which the history of art is not a history of great "movements" progressing in linear fashion. But those who use a lowercase style should avoid ambiguities such as "German expressionist painter" (alternative: a painter of the German expressionist movement).
In spite of this, as you acknowledge, the guide ultimately "leans towards capitalization of everything", and so do other sources, such as the Grove Dictionary of Art. I suspect that this is actually the most prevalent practice (though I'm not exactly going to do a survey of all art-historical literature to find out!), and so editors working from sources which follow it will capitalise terms such as "Renaissance", "Baroque", "Impressionism" and "Cubism". The principle of following existing usage is actually in the third sentence of MOS:CAPS: "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia."
In your original post you suggested "mentioning "visual arts movements and art style names" among MOS:GENRECAPS and, maybe, giving an example in MOS:DOCTCAPS (since it already mentions "movements" in general)." I'm all in favour of something like this. Ham (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Please notice that MOS:CAPS says: "...that are consistently capitalized in sources...", but these are not. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Take this here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Visual arts...Modernist (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
We seem determined to have this discussion in two places. But it is probably a good idea to have something on the main MOS page reflecting what is undoubtedly the normal usage by major museums and publishers of capitalizing terms like Renaissance, Impressionism and Cubism, regardless of what many dictionaries say. This is also the overwhelming practice of Wikipedia editors too (for example). Those who object should try to find major museums with English as their home language that do not capitalize in this way. Johnbod (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources on art do not always capitalize the same set of terms, and style guides acknowledge the difficulty and lack of consensus. What has worked pretty well in Wikipedia is treating this matter the same way we treat ENGVAR, allowing either convention if used consistently within an article, as exemplified by recent FAs Whaam! (lower case) and Ukiyo-e (upper case). Ewulp (talk) 12:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic to the ENGVAR argument, but I also wonder if the lack of consensus increases in writing about the modern and contemporary periods as compared with earlier ones? I have yet to find a single example of "renaissance" in lower case from scanning the contents of my bookshelves. The AAE guide makes reference to this phenomenon too. Ham (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Upper case for "Renaissance" seems inviolable; Chicago capitalizes it too: "Some names of periods are capitalized, either by tradition or to avoid ambiguity". FWIW I've been examining the NGA website and lower case seems to be the style there for mannerism, baroque, impressionism, cubism, the lot (but Renaissance, and Gothic). Ewulp (talk) 13:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Would it be worth building on User:Sparkit/capitalization, adding the Grove Dictionary of Art, the AAE's style guide, a cached version of the College Art Association's style guide mentioned at MOS:VA (if there is one), etc.? The aim would be to determine where there is contention and where there isn't, and ultimately to have a set of recommendations in a dedicated section at MOS:CAPS as well as at MOS:VA (which could be updated). Ham (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I think so...a summary at MOS:CAPS pointing to the detailed report at MOS:VA. Ewulp (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely - I'd never seen that. But arabesque does not belong there; I've left a note on the talk explaining it is a decorative motif not a movement. Johnbod (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
[The discussion continues here. Ham II (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)]

Capitalize names of art genres?

The MoS says "Names of musical or literary genres do not require capitalization at all, unless the genre name contains a proper name ...". What about art genres, such as "abstract expressionism" and "color field"? Should we add "or art" to the MoS? This looks like a no-brainer. Have I missed something? Chris the speller yack 22:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

NEITHER OF THESE ARE GENRES!!! Please! Not on any definition. Wikipedians often seem to include anything as a "genre" in any artistic field, and that alone is enough to strongly object to any extension of MOS guidance for "genres" until we can come up with a decent definition of what a "genre" is, outside comics. In fact the word is barely used in most proper art history except for the specific specialized meaning of genre painting described below, but is sometimes used for particular types of subjects in say 18th-19th century painting, and the like, where the parallels to literature and its genres is very close. Where music and literature have genres, art has materials, styles, formats and techniques. Genre art (normally "genre painting") has a particular meaning "the pictorial representation in any of various media of scenes or events from everyday life, such as markets, domestic settings, interiors, parties, inn scenes, and street scenes", and I suppose is a genre (and no it should not be capitalized). The hierarchy of genres is an important concept in art history, as in literature & music, the genres being: history painting, portrait painting, genre painting or scenes of everyday life, landscape and cityscape, animal painting, and still life. Those, and their subdivisions are what should be meant by a "genre" in art, not styles or art movements. Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have said "or visual art". Chris the speller yack 23:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Capping those would be a bad move. MOSCAPS says to avoid all unnecessary capitalisation. Tony (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
If there are no objections within a reasonable period, I will add "or visual art" to the MoS. Chris the speller yack 04:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Please note that a recent discussion of this issue can be found elsewhere on this page. Ewulp (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
#Capitalization and art movements is the link you're looking for. Dicklyon (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

As promised in the earlier discussion, I've compared the capitalisation in different online reference works here (building on Sparkit's helpful earlier work). One conclusion I can safely draw is that amending the MoS to read "art movements do not require capitalization at all, unless the genre name contains a proper name" would be a bad idea. Broadly speaking, there's a trend for general dictionaries to be more in favour of lowercase and specialist reference works to prefer uppercase. This is particularly clear-cut in the case of "abstract expressionist" versus "Abstract Expressionist", though less so with the various permutations of "colour field". At the very least, the MoS shouldn't disallow capitals for art movements when specialists in the field tend to use them, particularly for earlier periods. The term "Renaissance" almost never appears in lowercase (though one exception was found in a reliable source here). Ham II (talk) 10:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like you're arguing for specialist style, which I agree is a "fallacy" per WP:SSF. We should be free to use our own style, which is close to Chicago's, and avoid unnecessary capitalization. Where sources are mixed, we choose lower. It's not that hard. Dicklyon (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting me to the essay; I wasn't aware that this was considered a fallacy here and will keep my examples to general works. (I would have been saved a lot of trouble if I'd known about it before!) I also note that the essay doesn't consider the New Oxford Dictionary for Scientific Writers and Editors to be too specialist a style guide, so I would think that the Association of Art Editors Style Guide, which in its list of recommendations ultimately comes down on the side of capitalisation, is also acceptable.
An important point about "our style": as it's manifested in articles it mostly doesn't follow Chicago. According to the sample of articles here uppercase is preferred over lowercase by a little over three to one. There is also, according to the evidence gathered so far on that page, no contention about capitalising Renaissance or Mannerism in any sources (or about avant-garde being lower case). I've also added the Encyclopædia Britannica to the list of examples, and it too mostly favours capitalisation. Anecdotally, I also saw "Art Deco" in yesterday's newspaper. There are probably many more examples of a general preference for some capitalisation out there; after all, that's the existing general preference on Wikipedia. Ham II (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Strong objections per the previous discussion and above. The meaning of such a change would be totally ambiguous. It is in fact the case that what might be properly called genres in visual art (eg "19th-century comic animal painting") should normally not be capitalized, but the scope of the word is so routinely misused by Wikipedians coming straight from popular culture areas that this change would involve endless arguments starting from false premises. Agree with Ham's sensible comments here. Johnbod (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: art movements, periods and styles

There is a strong argument above for not applying the "musical and literary genres" guidelines to art, so I propose a new "art movements, periods and styles" section. Would the AAE's general principle of capitals for "sharply delimited period titles" and "artistic styles" ("Renaissance", "Baroque", "Impressionism", "Cubism") and lowercase for "broad periods and terms applicable to several periods" ("medieval", "modernism") be a good starting point for working out a policy? And should there be more leeway for recent movements, where there tends to be more variation in usage? Ham II (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a strong case for doing nothing. As it is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Visual_arts#Capitalization_and_art_movements applies, and while that would benefit from addition of references thrown up by this discussion, it has been in place for years, and has caused very little argument among actual editors of the articles on art (as opposed to MOS tinkerers). I think any addition should take that as its starting point. There is an issue with the start above, as it is precisely where a movement's name is also a common term that capitals are often most useful and necessary, as some of the style guides point out. Capitals are needed to distinguish between realist and Realist, expressionist and Expressionist, romantic and Romantic, modern and Modernist, impressionistic and Impressionist and so on. One might just link to the VAMOS section. Is there an actual problem here? Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that MoS tinkering has much effect on the content of art articles (probably none, in fact), but if there's no policy in the MoS to refer to won't this argument keep coming up again with the fallback argument being "avoid unnecessary capitalisation" (for which read: "if in doubt, assume that all capitalisation is unnecessary unless the MoS says otherwise")? By proposing a policy at MOS:CAPS I mainly want to avoid future headaches. Re: "realist/Realist" et al., I was expecting those to come up but was also trying to keep my initial starting point for discussion as brief as possible; they should definitely be covered too. If a link to the relevant section in WP:VAMOS will do the job I'm all for that, but I think that section needs some work given the amount of discussion there has been about this, and its conclusions need to be summarised at MOS:CAPS – to stop this from coming up repeatedly, if nothing else! Ham II (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that since WP:MOSCAPS has a section "Musical and literary genres" it should at least mention the existence of WP:VAMOS. I wouldn't have started this discussion if it had. Another thought: we should avoid recommending lower case for "baroque" as a musical style while recommending "Baroque" for painting and sculpture. Chris the speller yack 15:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I think a link to an improved VAMOS is best, partly because the art section, wherever it is, I think has to be rather longer. On B/baroque, I think we have to follow sources. The music and art styles are not exactly contiguous - there's the same thing with Romanticism, which lasted as a main movement in music for 50-100 years after it did in literature or art. Note that the section here covers "genres"; music and literature have movements too, throwing up the same issues: New Formalism & so on - calling these genres is at best very sloppy. On a proper definition, literary genres are things like epic poetry, tragedy, comedy, short story, detective novel, satire, allegory or pastoral, where it is not normally controversial not to capitalize. Probably the current MOS text is taken by many to say more than it actually does, and perhaps that should be addressed. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, "has to be rather longer" is a good indication of a wrong approach. ;–) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
We are reflecting what sources do, and when the actual usage situation is complex, our MOS must be too, as it is in so many areas. We are not making this up as we go along. Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that in this case the actual usage situation is pretty simple — everyone writes as they wish. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Could you please explain what is the difference between "expressionist and Expressionist" and "impressionistic and Impressionist" that you want to distinguish in your examples? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Dictionaries? Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization of "The" in titles of nobility

On the pages for Governors General of Canada, an editor is arguing that the "The" in front of a title "The Lord Tweedsmuir", "The Earl of Bessborough" etc. in the heading of an infobox should be lowercase as "the Lord Tweedsmuir", "the Earl of Bessborough" etc. As this is a stand alone phrase, not in the middle of a sentence, I argue that as in normal English, it should have a capital T. He has quoted MOS:JOBTITLES at me, specifically where is says "e.g. the Queen". I have pointed out that if it was a caption, heading or start of a sentence it would be "The Queen" not "the Queen" and agree that it would be "the Lord Tweedsmuir" if that were the middle of a passage not a standalone heading but he just goes back to the MOS. Please could the MOS be clarified to prevent such useless disputes in future. Dabbler (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Generally we use sentence case for titles of articles, headers of columns, captions of images, sections, category names and template names. About the only exception, and that is partial, is WikiProject names. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC).

Use of capitals in a shortened title

This matter appears to be only partly covered by its relation to the section Titles of people. I suggest that this needs clarification and possible inclusion as a separate heading.

In reference to institutions, bodies, etc, it is desirable when their names are repeated in shortened form, to retain the capital for the shortened title. For example: The Commissioners of Inland Revenue reconsidered the matter. ... Eventually the Commissioners agreed to ... (Fowler, p.73)

or

A representative of the R.S.P.C.A., who attended ... information had reached the Society that ... (Fowler, p.74)

In each case, the capitalised word (Commissioners and Society) refer to a specific body and is an obvious substitution for the full name.

Using the example above, a contributor might write: "the commissioners' decision was ...". This would be a decision of the specific commissioners and perhaps, a capital should have been used (certainly by Fowler's advice). BTW, I think in, "decision of the specific commissioners", the lower case is correct. In this case, 'commissioners' is not being substituted for 'the Commissioners of Inland Revenue'.

I would give some other examples of where the Capital (using Fowler's guidance) should or should not be used or where it might be optional and depend on the intent of the author.

"Before the union the Presbyterian Church of Australia was liberal, but the continuing Presbyterian Church became increasingly conservative", might be rewritten as: "Before the union the Presbyterian Church of Australia was liberal, but the continuing Church became increasingly conservative."

"All Saints Presbyterian Church is located in West Street. The Church is constructed from timber and brick." The second sentence, refers to 'the' specific church but the structure (a church) is not a proper noun. In this case, by Fowler's guidance, either might be considered correct. "The Church's first minister was ...". This would refer to the specific church and should have a capital but minister is used in a way that refers to the position and not the specific person, who might (incorrectly I am sure) be called Minister Jones. "The Church was severely damaged during a cyclone and a new church was constructed on the site in 1957." In this example, the first occurrence is perhaps optional but in context would specifically refer to All Saints Presbyterian Church, so the capital probably should be preferred. The second occurrence refers to a type of building (not a proper noun) and should not be capitalised.

A clear distinction is evident. When the noun is preceded by 'a', it refers to a general form. When preceded by 'the', it may or may not be a shortened form of the full name. When a capital is used, it is expressly a shortened form of the full name.

Titles of people is a specific case of this being applied; specifically; 'When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g. the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II".


{cite book|last1=Fowler|first1=H.W.|title=Fowler's Modern English Usage|date=1965 (1990 reprint)|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford|edition=2nd}

Feedback, comment, clarification, discussion please. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you are correct in how you are applying the existing MOS guidance. Does it really need to be clarified further? Blueboar (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
@Blueboar I have not been applying MOS guidance but Fowler, since the MOS is all but silent on the matter (save Titles of people) and it has been interpreted by some in a way contrary to this. The MOS deals with Titles of people but not the slightly more general case.Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I read the MOS:INSTITUTIONS section of this guideline as suggesting a different practice than @Cinderella157: suggests. There it gives the examples "The university offers programs in arts and sciences" and "The city has a population of 55,000", where it refers to a specific university or city with the, but uses lower case. By my understanding of the MoS, I would not capitalize "church" by itself in the examples above. Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 02:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
To some degree, capitalization depends on context... in the case of the word "church"... it is standard to use lower case when discussing a physical building (as in: "The church has a large rose window overlooking the nave") ... and to use upper case when discussing the institution (as in: "The Church opposes abortion"). Blueboar (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

MOS:INSTITUTIONS is ambiguous to the following extent.

Incorrect (generic): The University offers programs in arts and sciences.
Correct (generic): The university offers programs in arts and sciences.
Correct (title): The University of Delhi offers programs in arts and sciences.

In this example, 'The University of Dehli' is the subject of the discussion. The full name contains the word 'university'. In the first two examples, 'university' is specifically referring to the 'University of Dehli'. It is not a generic form but a shortened form of the proper noun, the 'University of Dehli'. To say, "As a university, the University of Dehli offers programs in arts and sciences." is an example (in the first occurrence of the word) where it is being used generically. If the Boston Community Colledge were chartered as a university then, "The Boston Community Colledge offers programs in arts and sciences", could be written as, "The university offers programs in arts and sciences." In this case, 'university' is not part of the full name and 'university' is not a shortened form of the full name.

Incorrect (generic): The City has a population of 55,000.
Correct (generic): The city has a population of 55,000.
Correct (title): The City of Smithville has a population of 55,000.
Correct ("city" omitted): Smithville has a population of 55,000.
Correct ("City" used as proper name): In the medieval period, the City was the full extent of London.

This example only serves (in my opinion) to confuse matters more. Is the full name of Smithville the 'City of Smithville' or is it a city called 'Smithville'? In the former case, 'City' can be used as a shortened form of the full name and would be a proper noun. In such as case, the first example would actually be correct: "The City has a population of 55,000." The last example: "In the medieval period, the City was the full extent of London", serves to obfuscate (in my opinion) and not clarify matters. Is London known as 'the City' or even as 'the City of London'? How is this last example different from the preceding, make it a correct use of capitalisation? There is a distinction between the name of a church which might be "All Saints" and "All Saints Church". In the latter case, the word 'church' is part of the full name. I would not disagree that the generic use of a word does not rate capitalisation and that its use as a proper noun does. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 07:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand... consider the word "crown"... as in: a) "at the coronation, the crown was placed on the Queens head." vs. b) "Under British law, the Crown prosecutes offenders"
The question is... would we do the same to words like "committee" ... we would certainly write: "Senator Smith was appointed chairman of the committee" ... but would we write: "Under Senate rules, a proposed measure must be approved by the Committee before being sent to the floor for a vote."? I am not sure.
In other words... capitalization in such cases may be something that is subject specific. Perhaps the reason why we are having difficulty writing clear consistent guidance is that there is no consistency - in the real world. The best we can probably do is say: "look at a whole lot of sources, and see how they capitalize the word in similar situations. If there is a consistent pattern... follow the sources". Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be easy to write clear consistent guidance: "When their names are repeated in shortened form, to retain the capital for the shortened title (etc)." "When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name," could be paraphrased. To be capitalised, the shortened name or title must be part of the full name or title and the full name or title must be a proper noun. Using articles 'a' or 'an' apply to a generic use of the noun and the noun is not capitalised. Use of 'the' could indicate either generic use of the noun or substitution of a shortened form of a proper noun. In the latter case, the noun (shorten form) would be capitalised. The context will determine if a capital is appropriate. As a test, if a word is a shortened form of a full title or name, the full title or name should be able to be substituted in the sentence where it is being used without altering the intended sense or meaning (withstanding that the sentence may become long or clumsy because of repeated use of the full name or title). This is a quick try. It could be supported by specific examples and by indicating specific cases such as titles, institution, organisations, bodies and localities. These would not be intended as being exhaustive. The preceding discussion has only served to indicate that the existing guidance is inconsistent and ambiguous, and that there is a need to improve the existing material. Such material needs to be broader in context so it is not (mis)construed as only applying to the specific cases identified. What I have written is fairly general. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Senator Smith was appointed chairman of the committee. Under Senate rules, a proposed measure must be approved by the Committee before being sent to the floor for a vote.

If the context is a discussion of the Senate Committee for Xyz, then the use of committee is not generic. The use of committee is a specific and obvious reference to the Senate Committee for Xyz and, by Fowler's advice, should be capitalised. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change

It would appear that material on this matter does lack clarity. What is said in the text should be indicated by the examples and what is indicated by the examples should be explained by the text. The MOS here, is not reinforcing some generally held practices. It is likely that there are regional variations in use and this may well affect perceptions. It is because there are variations in use, the MOS has a responsibility to give clear instruction to minimise the likelihood of contention arising. I am proposing this section to incorporate 'Titles of people' and 'Institutions'. I know that there is not going to be full agreement with what I have written. The purpose is to elicit responses and clarification so that generalised guidance can be formulated to cover a range of contexts. I have indicated some things that might be considered in examples but there needs to be a consensus on how different contexts are to be treated. Then the examples can be more fully developed and supporting text added if further clarification is needed.

Capitalisation of shortened forms of full or formal names (proposal)

This section provides guidance on the capitalisation of shortened forms of full or formal names. This section is applicable (but not limited to): names of committees, organisations, institutions, government departments, agencies or other bodies; geographical names, geopolitical names, the names of people with formal titles, clubs, societies, buildings, companies and corporations. Compound proper nouns are names which consist of two or more words. Some may be long, such as the names of committees, and others quite short. The names are capitalised in accordance with conventions detailed elsewhere on this page.

  • the House Select Committee to Investigate Alleged Corruptions in Government
  • City of Smithville

It is common that, once the name has been identified in full, a shortened form of the full or formal name may be used in text. City and Smithville are shortened forms of the formal name, City of Smithville. Smithville, though a shortened form of the formal name is still distinctly a name that commands the use of a capital letter. The purpose of this section is to resolve contention in the use of capitals in shortened forms where the distinction is not as clear and subject to some variation in interpretation. When full or formal names are repeated in shortened form, a capital is retained for the shortened form. For example:

  • The Commissioners of Inland Revenue reconsidered the matter. ... Eventually the Commissioners agreed to ...
  • A representative of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals who attended ... information had reached the Society that ...

In each case, the capitalised word in the second sentence (Commissioners and Society) refers to a specific body and is a specific, obvious and unambiguous substitution for the full name. Use of a capital serves as confirmation to the reader that the substitution is specific. Care must be taken not to misapply the use of a capital to such a word when it is being used in a generic sense and is not being used as a shortened form of a full or formal name. This section lists exceptions and confirms when this is to be applied.

Using articles 'a' or 'an' apply to a generic use of the noun and the noun is not capitalised. Use of 'the' could indicate either generic use of the noun or substitution of a shortened form of a proper noun. In the latter case, the noun (shorten form) would be capitalised. The context and intent will determine if a capital is appropriate. As a test, if a word is a shortened form of a full title or name, the full title or name should be able to be substituted in the sentence where it is being used without altering the intended sense or meaning (withstanding that the sentence may become long or clumsy because of repeated use of the full name or title).

To be considered a shortened form, the form must appear in the full or formal name. A shortened form may be compound and consist of two or more words but a compound shortened form must be of the same form in the full or formal name (ie the words must be contiguous and in the same order). In the House Select Committee to Investigate Alleged Corruptions in Government, the select committee would be considered a shortened form but not the house committee, since the words are not contiguous. There may be more than one shortened form used for a particular full or formal name. In this case, committee, select committee or house select committee might all be considered as shortened forms of the House Select Committee to Investigate Alleged Corruptions in Government.

  • The House Select Committee to Investigate Alleged Corruptions in Government was a select committee of the United States House of Representatives.
  • This house committee was also referred to as the Covode Committee after its chairman.
  • The Committee was chaired by John Covode.
  • The Select Committee was formed in 1860.
  • The House Select Committee was formed to investigate corruption during the Buchanan administration.

Geographical names

The Nile River
Yellowstone National Park
The Grampian Range

Geopolitical Names

  • The City of Smithville is located on the Red River.
  • The City has a population of 55,000.
  • Smithville has a population of 55,000.

Institutions

  • The University of Delhi was established in 1922.
  • The University offers programmes in arts and sciences.

[Note: move:

  • Names of institutions (George Brown College) are proper names and require capitals. The word the at the start of a title is usually uncapitalized, but follow the institution's own usage (a degree from the University of Sydney; but researchers at The Ohio State University).

To Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters #Capitalization of "The"

Titles of people

Shortcut

Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically: Mitterrand was the French president or There were many presidents at the meeting. They are capitalized only in the following cases:

  • When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e. when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon
  • When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g. the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II
  • When the correct formal title is treated as a proper name (e.g. King of France; it is correct to write Louis XVI was King of France but Louis XVI was the French king)

When an unhyphenated compound title such as vice president or chief executive officer is capitalized (unless this is simply because it begins a sentence), each word begins with a capital letter: In 1974 Vice President Ford was sworn in as the 38th president of the United States by Chief Justice Warren Burger This does not apply to unimportant words such as the "of" in White House Chief of Staff. When hyphenated, as Vice-president is in some contexts other than U.S. politics, the second (and any subsequent) elements are not capitalized.

Honorifics and styles of nobility should normally be capitalized, e.g. Her Majesty, His Holiness.

Synonymous names

  • The City of London is a small area within Greater London. It is often referred to as the City. In the medieval period, the City was the full extent of London.

The Covode Committee is synonymous with the Select Committee to Investigate Alleged Corruptions in Government . Synonymous or alternative names are capitalised when the widespread use can be independently confirmed. Synonymous names are distinctly different from shortened forms of full or formal names but there may be some apparent similarity as in the example of the City of London.


Existing material

I seems quite impossible to tell from the big text above what the proposed changes are. We need a diff of some sort. You could copy the old advice here, then edit to the new advice, and link the diff for us, at least. Dicklyon (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dicklyon there essentially is no old advice. This is a new section, largely without parallel. The Titles of people has been copied into the proposal as a subsection without change at this time. Unless discussion reveals other sections to be considered, the other relevant material is from MOS:INSTITUTIONS as follows:
Cinderella157 (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


Institutions

  • Names of institutions (George Brown College) are proper names and require capitals. The word the at the start of a title is usually uncapitalized, but follow the institution's own usage (a degree from the University of Sydney; but researchers at The Ohio State University).
  • Generic words for institutions (university, college, hospital, high school) do not take capitals:
Incorrect (generic): The University offers programs in arts and sciences.
Correct (generic): The university offers programs in arts and sciences.
Correct (title): The University of Delhi offers programs in arts and sciences.
  • Political or geographical units such as cities, towns, and countries follow the same rules: as proper names they require capitals; but as generic words (sometimes best omitted for simplicity) they do not.
Incorrect (generic): The City has a population of 55,000.
Correct (generic): The city has a population of 55,000.
Correct (title): The City of Smithville has a population of 55,000.
Correct ("city" omitted): Smithville has a population of 55,000.
Correct ("City" used as proper name): In the medieval period, the City was the full extent of London.

Invitation to comment

Cinderella157 (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Do we really need all this? I would object to examples like "The Nile River", since the title conventions treat river as not part of the name of the Nile. And I would object to using capitalized the University, the City, the Commission, etc. even when they refer a specific one under consideration, since treating those as common nouns works just as well. Are these proposals based on some guide that is commonly followed, or what? Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Do we need all this? We need something which is clear guidance on how to achieve the style requirements across a range of domains. The MOS does not achieve this ATM, otherwise we wouldn't be having these discussions here and elsewhere.
  • The Nile River is commonly refereed to as the Nile. A sample of other pages on rivers does not support your assertion. I could easily use another river as an example. The University, the City, the Commission could be treated as common nouns even though they are shortened forms of the full or formal name but this needs to be made unambiguously explicit for the range of domains to which this is to be applied and for any exceptions. A rationale for applying these 'rules' needs to be established. It also needs to be specified that the practice I have outlined should not be applied.
  • I started with Fowler (see preamble) and have looked at various on-line sources. From the latter, it is apparent that there is no consistent style. I have provided the wording for a standard to be applied in general. I have identified a range of domains for which it may be applied, with or without exception. I have taken a step toward a broader improvement of the present situation. You are at liberty to assert that no change is required. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I also object to using capitalized the University, the City, etc. Capitalizing these adds nothing to readability or understanding. I start to get a headache when the sledgehammer capitals keep coming: "Gringethorpe College was founded in 1843. The College allows dogs in the cafeteria. The College has its own heliport. The College houses left-handed students in a separate dormitory. The College has no cricket team." WP generally discourages unnecessary capitalization, so why encourage it in this case? Chris the speller yack
The situation is that there are conflicting conventions across a range of domains of which I have indicated a selection of what might ultimately be addressed. The present MOS is ambiguous. It lacks both clarity and scope. The aim is to produce a statement that can be easily interpreted and applied across a diversity of domains to produce a consistent style. While WP generally discourages unnecessary capitalisation, it begs the question of what is necessary. Capitalising does add to understanding in this case, as it confirms to the reader that it is the College being referred to. However, the real challenge is to produce a workable statement of style. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I steadfastly oppose this change to capitalize words that are not proper names. In an article about the University of Delhi, no reader that I can imagine would think that "The university offers programs in arts and sciences" refers to any institution other than the University of Delhi. Perhaps you can imagine such a reader. There are editors who imagine readers who need to have the word "large" wikilinked, and there are editors who imagine readers who need to have every number clarified ["There are two (2) sides to every argument"], but WP does not ask us to cater to such imaginary readers. When you go down that path, you create impediments for normal readers. You will need a better reason than that before you can overturn the general WP guidance to capitalize only the first word of a sentence and proper names. Chris the speller yack 17:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
@Chris the speller, you have a clear perception of what you believe the convention to be. This perception is not universally held nor is it clearly articulated by WP. Herein lies the issue. I repeat, the real challenge is to produce a workable statement of style - a statement that can be easily interpreted and applied across a diversity of domains to produce a consistent style.
Most capitalization is for proper names or for acronyms. Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia.
This is a very subjective statement. What are the exceptions to most? It certainly does not say only. What is necessary? While it is necessary to have a capital at the start of a sentence (after a full-stop), from then on, things start to get fuzzy. The style guides I have accessed on-line are not uniform in respect to the matter of capitalising shortened forms. However, they do, with some consistency, clarify the issue across a range of domains. This is not done to any extent in WP and where it is done, the advice is ambiguous. What of an article about universities, where the word university is used extensively and almost equally as a shortened form and generically? What of the other examples? What of the domains other than academic institutions? This proposal is not primarily about changing but about defining and improving. A WP style can oppose conventions to capitalise shortened forms but to do this effectively, it must first acknowledge that this is contrary (in at least certain domains) to accepted practice for a significant proportion (ie not negligable) of English users across the world. Would you describe your position as diametric to my proposal? Are there exceptions that can be readily identified? Are the exceptions in any way general for a range of situations or a domain? Can you define what you perceive the WP style to be? Can you do this in a way that acknowledges that there are conventions to capitalise shortened forms? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Cinderella157 (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Breeds of animals

I have become involved in a discussion on the Mustang page about capitalisation of the term when used for horses. In looking at other pages of cat and dog breeds, I see that many of them are uppercase when they are not proper nouns or names. To me, the MOS is clear that breeds should NOT be capitalised. Am I correct in this interpretation?__DrChrissy (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a long-running discussion where the "local consensus" of animal breed editors is strong enough to avoid compliance with the more general case conventions as expressed in the MOS. I don't know whether it applies to Mustang; is that actually a breed? Dicklyon (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources say no to capitalizing mustang the wild horse. Try other queries that are likely to exclude the car model and see what you find. Dicklyon (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much - I have not seen that tool before - very useful. I don't think that mustang is a breed - at least Mustang does not state it is. __DrChrissy (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
See the talk page of the article. I explained why the M/m/ustang IS a breed, at least to the extent that it is not a species and it is a feral landrace descended from domesticated breeds of horses. The problem here is that the concept of a breed, at least in horses and other livestock is pretty fluid; there is no agreed-upon scientific definition nor is there really a legal one. There is no universal organization that defines what is or is not a horse breed. Montanabw(talk) 18:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
And by the way, "wild mustang" is seldom used, it is just "mustang" or "Mustang" if you will, "mustang horse". Mustangs are not "wild" they are feral horses. Montanabw(talk) 18:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"Like" redux

Although the discussion above at #Composition titles does not seem to have reached a consensus, an attempt is being made to make the word like an explicit exception to the "lowercase four-letter prepositions" guideline on this MOS page, referenced only to a set of search results and to a single RM discussion. Unfortunately, the matter is not as simple as that, since RM discussions with the opposite outcome (e.g., at Talk:Do It like a Dude) can also be cited. I appreciate the desirability of clear guidance on this matter, but I'm not seeing any definitive justification for rewording the guideline to make this single word an exception. (In addition, the position of Dekimasu—who has closed a number of RMs dealing with the question, perhaps paying more attention to the opinions expressed therein than to the MOS's guidance—seems rather too equivocal for him to be restoring this change to the MOS page.) I think that an RfC, at least, is needed before we start making statements that that there are specific cases in which the MOS does not apply. Note also that these MOS pages are under standard discretionary sanctions from ArbCom, which I'm not invoking at this time but which should discourage the making of any changes in the absence of a clear consensus established through discussion. Comments? Deor (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Why do we need always/never blanket statements in the first place?... I know there is a (somewhat knee-jerk) desire on the part of MOS regulars to have conformity... but that desire can be taken to silly extremes. Sometimes forcing consistent capitalization in all situations is a case of over-consistency. It's no secret what my solution to just about every capitalization debate is... deal with the issue on a case by case basis: look at how independent sources capitalize the words in a composition's title. If they capitalize "like" (or any other word), so should we... if not, we should not. Blueboar (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I support having a "house style". As the MoS says (somewhere), the practice seems universal among the most highly regarded publications, and it provides a professional degree of consistency that would be lacking if we just try to duplicate logo-like styling that we find elsewhere on a case-by-case basis. Especially with subjects such as pop music and television, artists and their marketers sometimes actively push vanity styling to promote their products, and sometimes they may get sources to acquiesce in order to get access to interviews or to try to seem hip. But Wikipedia is not intended as a place for promotion, and is intended to consider long-term notability as a higher consideration than the current popular fashion of the day.
As noted by Deor, "like" is a sore spot. Another one is "upon". I've noticed that there are several articles using "upon" with capitalization for which no one seems to have ever even brought up the possibility of using a lowercase "upon". Take a look at Once Upon a Time. I get the impression that many sources use a rule of using uppercase for prepositions of four letters or more rather than five letters or more. I think we should consider that approach here. That might improve the situation for both "like" and "upon". (I've also been meaning to follow up on Dekimasu's suggestion to start a discussion at WP:AT, but haven't gotten around to it.)
—BarrelProof (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but it is precisely because the practice is so "universal among the most highly regarded publications" that we should pay attention to the sources when they don't do what is expected. My point is that when the sources don't follow their usual pattern, when they make an exception to their own rules... we need to pay attention to that fact... and follow the sources. Blueboar (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd think equivocality would be an advantage–since I don't really have strong feelings about what the final result should be, and above have been trying to push the discussion toward any conclusion that would result in MOS guidance that is clear and enjoys consensus. At any rate, under normal circumstances I certainly do weigh more heavily those opinions that agree with the consensus MOS. In this case, however, the raising and reraising of the same question–as well as the consistency of objections to the MOS as it stands–led me to believe that a statement like the one added by Red Slash represents the status quo accurately: that the community consensus on what to do with the preposition "like" is unclear at the moment. I did not read this as creating an exception implying that "like" should be an exception to the MOS. As such, I'm not sure what to do with the stipulation in the revert that a comment on the fact that there's no consensus should only be added with explicit consensus. Anyway, I would be really happy to have the guidance on this cleared up per BarrelProof and the conversation above. That would make the job of closing RMs on the subject that much easier. (I was also under the impression that the MOS subpages were under 1RR, but maybe that's not true at the moment.) Dekimasuよ! 18:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Along those lines, an interesting possibility might be to provide guidance to user lowercase for prepositions of three letters and fewer, uppercase for prepositions of five letters and more, and to look to prevalence in reliable sources to make decisions about four-letter prepositions. Then "like", "upon", and "into" would all be open to case-by-case consideration (as well as "from" and "with", I suppose, although those seem less troublesome). —BarrelProof (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I made the change, because policies and guidelines should reflect what we actually do at Wikipedia. I would be fine consistently lowercasing or capitalizing it, but the point is that we consistently are inconsistent. So I changed it, and would continue to support my change or similar ones. I like BarrelProof's suggestion, but I did look, and "with" and "into" are both consistently and overwhelmingly left uncapitalized - I didn't keep looking. "Upon" is perhaps another one we could include with the whole "like" business. Red Slash 23:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

If you have a house-style, Bluboard, which we and most reputable publishers do, then it means not always replicating the style of so-called sources—they are nearly always inconsistent with each other, and often within their publications. Tony (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Reflecting "what we actually do at Wikipedia" is also complicated by the fact that we do things chaotically until wiki-gnomes come along and try to clean up toward our house style. You can find exceptions to everything, and people to argue for them. Should we then document that as saying that our house style is generally no consensus, to let all sorts of random variations of style prevail? I think it is usually better to decide and give clear guidance; and after we do so, to abide by it. But maybe I'm just old-fashioned. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
@Tony - Re: If you have a house-style, Bluboar, which we and most reputable publishers do, then it means not always replicating the style of so-called sources - True... unless that house style is to replicate the style of sources... which is what I have been arguing for. I have no problem having a house style... but that house style should not conflict with policy. When it comes to the presentation of NAMES, we have a strongly supported policy that says we should follow the sources... therefore our house style needs to reflect that policy (and not conflict with it). In other words, our house style needs to change. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
My recollection is that "Follow the sources" was an abandoned concept, promoted by the discredited sock Pmanderson. What strongly supported policy are you thinking of? Dicklyon (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
"Follow the sources" is hardly abandoned... it is central to WP:AT and numerous WP:Naming conventions... it underlies our core Polices (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR)... etc. etc. etc.... The basic concept that we should defer to sources is a core principle that runs throughout Wikipedia. If it has been "abandoned" at MOS, then MOS is the outlier, and has lost touch with the rest of Wikipeida (which may explain why there is so much resistance to MOS) Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Abandoned as a styling principal is what I meant. Dicklyon (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Educational degrees

Should the names of degrees be capitalized? Is it "Associate Degree" or "associate degree"? "Master's" or "master's", "Bachelor's" or bachelor's" etc. Could not find this in the MOS. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 20:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The formal name of a specific degree should be capitalized: "Master of Arts", "Doctor of Philosophy", etc. But general terms referring to classes of degrees are lowercased as common nouns: "associate degree", "bachelor's degree", "master's degree", "doctorate". Deor (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
So in a college or university article a statement like "University of Foo offers master's degrees" would be correct capitalization? —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 23:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Deor (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes. An "associate degree" is a category, not a specific degree, a descriptive level of degree, not the degree itself. A specific degree, such as "Bachelor of Arts", or even more specifically "Bachelor of Science in Computer Science", is the title of the specific degree itself, and as a title is usually capitalized. Evensteven (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
So, I presume, "That university offers an Associate Degree in Dental Nursing", but "He has an associate degree in history". I'm not sure you couldn't downcase the first in most contexts. Could I ask whether the apostrophe in "master's" is optional or wrong or mandatory? And can one write "bachelor degree"? Tony (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you can downcase degrees in most usages, when it is a biography it's certainly better to write "BSc in computer science". Traditional usage "Greats" "Tripos" I suppose is harmless - "tripos" would be clear but "greats" might trip people up - even then a wikilink might fix that. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC).
Agree with Rich Farmbrough that downcase works most places. To my way of thinking, caps are for a title, and if a title, then for a specific item. In your example, both associate degrees look specific, so caps would be permissible in both - but not mandatory. I'd then use caps if needed to be more formal. As for "bachelor degree", you wrote it, can't I? My point is not to be flip, but rather that we can and do write it at need because many others do also. But if we find some people capitalizing it, they're being loose about what's a title and what's not. That too, happens, and is becoming commonplace enough that my stricter observance is gradually becoming eroded in common practice. I don't think we're back to a free-for-all with it, but in the 17th and 18th centuries, people were quite free about capitalizing wherever they wanted to, and I think we're drifting back. I happen to think that's a bit silly, since when so many things are capitalized, it takes away from the stand-out quality of special emphasis that it can be useful for. Evensteven (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters/Archive_13&oldid=1136422269"