This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the
Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles
This page falls under the
contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia
Manual of Style, and the
article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the
awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Capitalization discussions ongoing (keep at top of talk page)
Add new items at top of list; move to Concluded when decided, and summarize the conclusion. Comment at them if interested. Please keep this section at the top of the page.
Talk:Popverse#Redirect templates – Should the "avoided double redirect" tag to applied on a correctly capitalized redirect when there's a similar but miscapitalized redirect? Or should only the miscapitalized one be so tagged? Result – Removed tag from correctly capitalized
Popverse as inappropriate, and left it on
PopVerse which is miscapitalized.
Talk:IMP.#Requested move 9 June 2024 – All-caps for this shortened form of "Impactors"? Result: All-caps retained since sources seem to do that.
Talk:Pied-Noir#Lowercase – Lowercase "Pied-Noir" (or use "Pied-noir" or "Pieds-Noirs" or "Pieds-noirs" or "pieds-noirs")? Result: Lowercase "noirs", leaning lowercase for "pieds" as well.
Talk:Toy boy#Requested move 17 December 2023 – Should lowercase indicate a boy that is a toy rather than the title of some published works? Result: Yes; disambiguation moved to uppercase.
WT:WikiProject Freemasonry#Capitalization – Where do we draw the line of capitalization of offices and such in Freemasonry? Result: Some say just follow
MOS:OFFICE, others want to follow Freemasonry's conventions. No clear consensus.
Talk:NTV Plus#Requested move 15 September 2023 – Is all-caps an appropriate distinction between Russian and Nepali TV channels? Result: No; use ordinary title case for proper name, not all-caps.
Talk:Sangaku#Capitalization: is the article title just an ordinary Japanese word borrowed into English, or a proper noun? (note - while the discussion was not formally closed, all instances are now in lowercase
Talk:Welsh Revolt#Requested move 30 July 2023 – Initially Welsh Revolt → Glyndŵr Rebellion but subsequently a question of capitalising the second word in any choice. Result: Lowercase "rebellion".
Talk:In Search of...#Requested move 10 October 2022 – Should the "of..." become "Of..." because it is the last word of the title? (a two-article RM) Result: Retain lowercase since truncation of a longer title is implied.
Talk:Lost Decades#Requested move 7 July 2022 – Lowercase "Decades", among other issues? Result: Not moved. The closer commented about primary topic status but did not comment about capitalization.
User talk:Snickers2686#MOS:JOBTITLES – "until [JOBTITLES is] applied consistently, which it isn't in this set of articles, then to me, it doesn't apply at all". – judges generally lowercased
Talk:National Historic Landmark#Requested move 18 January 2022 – Multimove to lowercase for "National Historic [Capitalized singular]", "National [Capitalized plural]", and "List of Historic [Capitalized plural]"? Result: Withdrawn after near-unanimous opposition to the central principle based on the linguistic concept of a proper name, noting consistent capitalization in sources.
Talk:g-force#Requested move 7 January 2022 – "g-force" or "G-force"? Result: RM procedurally closed (made no difference) and usage in article prose already changed to "g-force".
2021
RMs on capitalization of "Attorneys" and "Ambassadors" (or rephrasing to avoid the plural formal title): – all downcased
WT:AT#RFC on dash-separated titles for sports events 2 January 2022 – Capping of "Men's Singles" and "women's doubles"? Result: No consensus to ban dashes, no consensus on capitalization; consensus that capitalization should be worked out at WikiProject Tennis.
Capitalising a plural generic term before or after two or more proper names.
In a recent discussion on capitalising forts in
battle of Forts Jackson and St. Philip,
Deor observed: Most of the (U.S.) style guides I'm familiar with recommend lowercasing a plural generic term when it follows two or more proper names—thus, "the Mississippi and Missouri rivers", even though "river" is capped in "Mississippi River" and "Missouri River"—but capitalizing a generic term when it precedes proper names, as in "Mounts Whitney and Rainier". If this is a consistent norm in English (ie not just the US), is it worth noting this in the MOS?
Cinderella157 (
talk)
03:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't know the guides, but I see overwhelmingly capped Forts in Forts Jackson and St. Philip, and overwhelmingly capped Presidents in Presidents Bush and Obama, Generals in Generals MacArthur and Eisenhower. Probably that's not enough to generalize from, but it's suggestive.
Dicklyon (
talk)
04:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I would go that way, since "Mounts", etc., leans toward completely contrived in contemporary English, and we can avoid the confusing inconsistency of potentially ariving a "before" rule that directly conflicts with an "after" one (
WP:CREEP,
MOS:BLOAT,
KISS principle). At the cost of a repeated word (or, often enough, abbreviation), it also provides a great deal more clarity; not all readers are going understand "Forts Jackson and Saint/St. Philip" since the later has its own prefixed word or abbreviation. A weird construction like "attended the Universities of California and New Mexico" is rare because it is potentially confusing, and it isn't really improved by writing "attended the universities of California and New Mexico" since that seems to imply universities in those places (and that they are the only ones in those places) but which are named something else we're not specifying. Let's just not go there. Be specific: "Attented the Univerity of Calforia (1987–92), and the Univeristy of New Mexico (1993–94)"; "moved supplies from Ft. Jackson to Ft. St. Philip over the winter"; "Mt. Whitney (California) and Mt. Ranier (Washington state) are the two most-visited peaks of the US West Coast"; and so on. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 06:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It seems a bit strange, since the previous sentence already refers to "reliable sources", which is a
well-defined term in Wikipedia and includes journals and newspapers, at least in general – so why does your sentence seem to exclude them? And why indeed would it be necessary to repeat what RS are?
Gawaon (
talk)
20:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Because every time I come across a discussion about capitalization, and people present evidence from "sources", it's almost exclusively ngrams and news articles.
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
20:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't see how it's necessary. If you try to enumerate sources, best include scholarly articles, too. Or maybe just say that random web pages are not usually good sources. Sometimes people object to book examples of usage on the basis that the book is about gambling (e.g. in a sports context), or is a children's book; to me, these are still valid datapoints about usage in independent sources, whether or not they'd be reliable for content. I don't think we can try to pin this down one way or another without considerable discussion.
Dicklyon (
talk)
08:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Any opinions here one way or the other? Are any of these properly capitalized, or should I fix them all to lowercase like in
Scholarship level and
A-level? Also lowercase scholarship and advanced and such in sentences?
Dicklyon (
talk)
17:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Lower-case would be consistent with
MOS:DOCTCAPS and
MOS:SIGCAPS, as the default, but we'd use upper-case if the capitalization is near-consistently found in indepedent RS material (i.e. independent of the school systems, testing bodies, governments, etc., at issue in each of these). It may vary by case. I don't live in a country that uses these terms, and most of my encountering of them has been in material that doesn't pass
WP:INDY, so it's hard to say. This is kind of half-way between the general principle of not capitalizing any academic subjects and categories on the one hand except where the contain proper names ("African studies", "particle physics", "third grade", "high school", etc.), versus the desire of some editors to capitalize all professional certifications on the other ("Certified Public Accountant", etc.). The latter practice does not have a clear consensus and is contrary to the intent of both of the above MoS sections as well as
MOS:JOBTITLES (though it may make better sense for trademarked certifications, e.g. Microsoft Certified Solutions Expert, MCSE). So, I would lean lower-case on this as a general principle, unless "capitalized in a substantial majority of independent reliable sources" is actually provable for particular cases, which would take some work to identify a non-trivial amount of sourcing that has no connection to the bodies involved in the certifications. Maybe start with scholar.google.com and scholar.archive.org? PS: That said, a designator letter like "A" or "O" and an acronym like "GCE" in such things would always be capitalized. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Online username: CAP1TAL or Cap1tal?
The Twitch streamer/YouTuber
F1NN5TER recently has a page created about them, but the capitalization of their page matches their spelling of their screen name on Twitch, Twitter, among other places. However, the name has no reason to be in all-caps as it is not an acronym or initialism. It is the nickname "Finnster", but with numbers and all-caps. I believe it should be "F1nn5ter", in keeping with several other (mostly music acts/songs) that are spelled in all-caps in as many places as possible, notably
MF Doom,
JPEGMafia,
Crim3s,
Hori7on, and
4Eve, but there's not many other pages that deal with all-caps online usernames. Discussion on it here:
Talk:F1NN5TER#CapitalizationPhillycj23:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
"Stylized in all caps" is for cases where the formal spelling of a name is not in all caps. To use the phrase in any other context is
original research: We can't say that "F1NN5TER" is a stylization of "F1nn5ter" because no reliable sources say that. This is a screen name, so it has no official spelling (unlike, say, the trademarked sentence-case name of a company). We can only go on how it is spelled by the subject (AFAIK, always in all caps, except when not possible due to technical limitations), and how it is spelled by independent reliable sources (in all caps in a significant majority).This is borne out in MoS. There's not actually anything in
MOS:BIO or the main MoS page about applying the "stylization" doctrine to people's names or pseudonyms, but (a bit confusingly) there's something in
MOS:TMRULES: "When a name is almost never written except in a particular stylized form, use that form on Wikipedia:
Deadmau5 [...] but
Kesha not Ke$ha". If we suppose that that does apply even in a case where a pseudonym isn't trademarked, then this becomes a fact-bound question based on how sources refer to F1NN5TER, which can be resolved on the article's talkpage. If we say it doesn't apply, then the only governing rule is
MOS:ALLCAPS, which doesn't apply because the difference in capitalization in a screen name is not purely stylistic, and which, with the exception of trademarks, otherwise concerns itself with cases where a term would normally be sentence-cased but might in a quote be all-caps. --
Tamzin[
cetacean needed (
they|xe)
05:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
MOS:TM is clear in its lead that it applies to everything that is generally trademark-like, not just that which is legally subject to a trademark, so its material on Deadmau5 vs. Ke$ha is applicable here. And MOS:BIO explicitly refers to this material for "unusual name presentations, usually in the sphere of performer marketing", which this subject clearly qualifies under. If F1NN5TER is virtually always rendered F1NN5TER not F1nn5ter in independent sources, then it should be rendered that way here. If "a substantial majority" of such sources don't render it that way, and F1nn5ter is common enough, then we should use F1nn5ter. (I remain skeptical in this case, because the vast majority of user login systems on social media and related sites are not case-sensitive. The MoS default is always to use lower-case unless the substantial-majority upper-case usage in indy sources is proven.) The OP is correct in that this is pretty much the same sort of case as various bands and such; but the specific examples cited have ended up at non-ALLCAPS names here because the source usage is demonstrably mixed in their cases, not because they form some kind of special class. Unusual casing is permitted on WP, when it overwhelmingly dominates in the source material (e.g.
danah boyd,
k.d. lang, though the latter is getting more dubious over time, as fewer sources today go with the all-lowercase, or the unspaced initials, than did back in the day; but contrast this with
CCH Pounder who is usually rendered that way – no dots or spaces in initials – and has published a stated preference for it –
WP:ABOUTSELF does matter, but the preference has to be reflected in indy sources, per
WP:SPNC, with more weight given to sources that post-date the change or, by logical extension, the publication of the preference statement). —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Does RS or MOSCAPS decides proper names?
I have been having a debate with
Tony1 on whether
List of tornado outbreaks by Outbreak Intensity Score should be "List of tornado outbreaks by Outbreak Intensity Score" or "List of tornado outbreaks by outbreak intensity score". The question comes down bluntly to whether MOS (which is Tony1's argument) says proper names in the title cannot be capitalized, or if RS, which capitalized things, is more important for the capitalization in a title. Tony1 has
also switched "Super Outbreaks" to "Super outbreaks" in the article subheadings, despite
academically published papers capitalizing "Super Outbreak". So, which is more important for article titles/article subheadings? MOS or RS? The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)00:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm always a bit confused by the "proper names" argument: there are plenty of proper names in English that are rendered in lowercase, unless the only qualification for a name being proper is that it's capitalized, which is adorably circular.
Remsense诉00:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The capitalization of Fujita, Saffir–Simpson, Miller, and Sperry–Piltz are on account of those being names of people. I'd question that "Ice Accumulation Index", but it does seem to be always capped in sources, even though it's a descriptive term, so I won't mess with it.
Dicklyon (
talk)
02:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)reply
At the talkpage the editor strangely likens his upcasing to "
Enhanced Fujita scale (an article that s/he started, excuse me), arguing that I would say it should be "Enhanced fujita scale" (i.e. not capitalized the proper name)", and that "Enhanced Fujita" is itself a proper name. But the editor still wants "Score" in
List of tornado outbreaks by Outbreak Intensity Score.
As well the editor upcases main-text titles despite their being plural, which sits oddly with his claim that they are proper names.
I withdraw the claim of vandalism, given WeatherWriter's claimed reason.
WeatherWriter, the MOS says how to decide, but doesn't decide itself. In fact, it refers to reliable sources. If you read the lead of
MOS:CAPS, you'll see the general principle, "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." Looking at the article, I see that the term was made up in late 2023, so there are not many independent sources yet. We don't generally pay much attention to the capitalization of a writer who makes up a descriptive term and presents it with capital letters – what matters is whether independent sources cap it. I did find
this Tornado Project Online page that uses lowercase except where defining the acronym. The term is clearly descriptive, sort of like
volcanic explosivity index and lots of other such things. I'll look into the others; e.g.
Miller classification sure seems like it's over-capitalized.
Dicklyon (
talk)
01:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually, I see that site I linked with lowercase is also not independent, as it seems to be run by the creator/author of the OIS. So he doesn't even cap it consistently himself. I guess the question is then whether this new scale is even notable yet.
Dicklyon (
talk)
16:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Issue solved. The article title itself was moved to lowercase (
List of tornado outbreaks by outbreak intensity score). RS and academic usage does seem to support the outbreak terms, i.e. “Super Outbreak”, is capitalized, so the subheadings will remain capitalized. But, I will not fight or debate the article title being “ List of tornado outbreaks by “Outbreak Intensity Score”, since the creator is the one who capitalized it and the other source did not. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)05:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Also note that terms like "super outbreak" have been in use for decades and are not proper nouns. The fact that Grazulis adopted them as category names in the OIS doesn't mean we need to capitalize them. I fixed those headings.
Dicklyon (
talk)
17:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It looks like the issue has now been solved. The subheadings have all be decapitalized. I did recapitalize the individual super outbreak articles (
1974 Super Outbreak and
2011 Super Outbreak) since those names are actually capitalized by majority of sources including official government reports and media reports (
[1][2]). But nonetheless, the problem is fully solved. MOS overall trumps RS in usage, especially if the creator of a name is involved. Thanks y'all! The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)17:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not a majority vote, though, and it doesn't seem to make much sense to treat some super outbreaks different from all others.
Gawaon (
talk)
18:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If they aren't treated differently, then the original question is automatically solved: MOS trumps RS usage. If we treat them differently, then RS usages trumps MOS. That is the whole question and reason this discussion really started in the first place. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)18:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Indeed it is not a majority vote; we do not capitalize something unless the vast majority of the independent sources do for something in particular, which doesn't seem to be the case here. A simple majority is insufficient (and trying to determine one is extremely easy to fake/manipulate through cherrypicking). Capitalizing one thing out of class of things just because a slight majority of sources that one has selected seem to do it is a terrible idea. It's grossly inconsistent (and a PoV-laden problem of promotionalism toward a particular sub-topic and often non-indendent sources that write about it), seemingly out of an "I will do everything in my power to keep some vestige of over-capitalization in my pet topic" angle, which is unconstructive. WP's default is always lower-case, unless and until usage for a particular instance is demonstrably proven to be "capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources", and even then we are not utterly bound to do it, since
WP:CONSISTENT is policy. People really need to stop approaching this kind of question like some sort of suicide pact. Just apply common sense, in a direciton which results in what is most not least consistent with the rest of the material, and move on to something more productive than trying to get "S" where "s" will do perfectly fine. Please.
PS: See also
MOS:DOCTCAPS: WP does not capitalize the name of methods, systems, classifications, theories, scales, approaches, schools of thought, practices, processes, procedures, doctrines, etc., etc., or parts thereof at all, so this question did not need to arise in the first place. The rare exceptions (e.g. geological/biological and athropological eras like Jurassic and Neolithic) are capitalized because and only because they are near-universally capitalized in reliable source material. It never, ever has anything to do with someone's arguments that something "really" "is" a "proper name" (for why this is a pointless waste of time here, and in general since even specialists for over two centuries now cannot agree on what that means, see
WP:PNPN). —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I had changed a couple of headings but didn't move the corresponding articles
2011 Super Outbreak and
1974 Super Outbreak, as I think those are capitalized enough in sources to be controversial, but yes they are sometimes lowercase and not really proper names. I'm going to leave them alone for now, but I'll support lowercase if someone wants to work on that.
Dicklyon (
talk)
01:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This was kind of a strange question, since the lead of
MOS:CAPS says to only capitalize that which is capitalized in a substantial majority of independent reliable sources, so the answer to the "Does RS or MOSCAPS decides proper names?" question is, well, "yes". There is no either/or conflict here. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 06:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Is "Park Hyatt Hotel" a single name where all words are capitalized, or is "hotel" a mere lower-case modifier in such cases? I would tend to capitalized the generic term, just as in
Congo River or
Baltic Sea. However, other users seem to disagree and
MOS:INSTITUTIONS lacks an example that could clarify this point.
Gawaon (
talk)
13:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This Hyatt page discusses their brands, including "Park Hyatt" and mentions "Park Hyatt hotels". Typical hotel names are of the form "Park Hyatt <City>". I don't thing "Park Hyatt Hotel" is the proper name of anything. Where does this come up?
Dicklyon (
talk)
06:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It looks like the name of that one is Park Hyatt Paris–Vendôme, genericized to the Park Hyatt hotel in central Paris. Seems right.
Dicklyon (
talk)
16:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, this is like "the
Larsen–Feiten Band", which was the actual name of a band, versus "
Coverdale–Page" which was the name of another band; if someone called the latter "the Coverdale–Page band" (which has definitely happened
[3]) it would be understood what was meant, but not their actual name, so should not be written with capital-B "Band". Or in other words, the presence of "Hotel" in some hotels' official names doesn't make it part of the name of other hotels that lack the word, even if it's later appended as a descriptor/disambiguator (or out of ignorance/confusion). —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 06:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Undocumented conversion to uppercase by {{no redirect}} template
This is a bit of a word-of-warning about the {{no redirect}} template, a.k.a. the {{-r}} template, which is apparently used on about 623,000 pages on Wikipedia (about 1% of all pages). Although Wikipedia says it "avoids unnecessary capitalization", this template is causing automatic conversions to uppercase in an undocumented way. If you type "{{
no redirect|lowercase}}" and "{{
no redirect|heroic}}", you (currently) get what looks like "
lowercase" and "
Heroic"! If you want "
heroic", you need to use "{{
no redirect|heroic|heroic}}". This behaviour is undocumented at
Template:No redirect, and in my opinion it will introduce errors. It will cause uppercase to appear in the middle of sentences in a rather unpredictable way. Very few people would probably notice or understand when it will convert the link name to uppercase and when it will not. There is a discussion of the issue at
Template talk:No redirect, but I wanted to mention it here to let people know to keep an eye out for this when editing and to show how to use the template with the duplicate argument if the template is causing uppercase but you want a lowercase result. The problem was reported on the template talk page six years ago, but there hadn't been any response before I noticed it today. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
05:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm proposing a change on the
MOS:BIOGRAPHY page that will affect capitalization conventions
