View source for Wiki143 talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)

{{Contentious topics/talk notice|at}}
{{Notice|Questions and requests posted here may not be answered promptly. Odds are, any query about capital letters and Wikipedia will be more quickly addressed at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters]], even if it's specifically about article titles.}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 130K
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 5
|algo = old(180d)
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 2
}}
{{archives|bot=MiszaBot II|auto=short|age=30|search=yes}}

==Capitalization discussions ongoing [keep at top of talk page]==
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 06:53, 11 February 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1865487200}}
{{Excerpt|Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters|Capitalization discussions ongoing (keep at top of talk page)|subsections=yes}}

== ''Always'' or ''consistently'' capitalized? ==
{{archive top|status=moved|result={{Moved discussion to|Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Overturning NCCAPS}}}}
I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(capitalization)&diff=prev&oldid=1275814469 recently edited] the following sentence in the guideline intro ''"For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a [[proper name]] that would '''always''' occur capitalized, even mid-sentence"'' to read ''"...that would '''consistently''' occur capitalized..."''  My edit was reverted.

I assumed that the intent of the statement was to address the fact that a number of sources may capitalize terms in the titles of articles, but not in the running text, and that "always" meant ''always within a single source''.

However, in [[Talk:Syrian revolution#Requested move 14 February 2025|a recent move discussion]], another user interpreted this statement to mean ''always in every source''.

The idea that a term is literally ''always'' capitalized in every source is untenable and adherence to such a rule would require major changes at Wikipedia.  For example, "[[Second World War]]" and "[[American Civil War]]" are not invariably capitalized.  ''[[The Economist]]'', a respected major publication, doesn't capitalize either per its [http://www.economist.com/style-guide/wars Style Guide.] (p. 176 of the 2018 edition; e.g. [http://www.economist.com/node/21556542 here,] [http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21602654-how-second-world-war-changed-new-yorker-well-read here] and [https://www.economist.com/culture/2024/05/17/a-renowned-mysterious-photographer-of-the-american-civil-war here]), while Wikipedia does.

And if "always" is not to be taken literally, then it probably doesn't belong in a guideline.

{{bcc|Cinderella157|Randy Kryn|SMcCandlish}}What say ye?  — [[User talk:AjaxSmack|<span style="border:1px solid #004705;background:#168c1d;padding:2px;color:#e9ede9;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;">&nbsp;'''AjaxSmack'''&nbsp;</span>]] 18:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

*It is a [[truism]] that [[proper name]]s|nouns are ''always capitalised''. The ''spirit and intent'' of the truism does not mean that we will never find an instance where this is not the case but it will be inconsequential and probably attributable to a typographical error. Statistically, these would be [[outlier]]s. Given the ''spirit and intent'' of ''always'' as used here, it is not intended to be taken ''literally'' and imply absolute uniformity but it does set a very high bar since the truism is followed with near universal consistency. Not everything that is written should be taken absolutely ''literally''. To argue same is in essence ''[[reductio ad absurdum]]''. I note that ''always'' has existed in this guidance since its inception. The ngrams for ''Second World War'' ([https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Second+World+War&year_start=1900&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3 here]) does now show near universal capitalisation, even if that was not always the case. That is because it is arguably not a ''true'' proper name but a descriptive name capitalised for emphasis or significance. We see the same for ''American Civil War'' [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=American+Civil+War&year_start=1900&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3 here]. As to the ''assumption of intent'' proposed by AjaxSmack, I see nothing in the overall guidance that would support such a ''reading between the lines''. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 04:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
*"Always" here means "always, by competent writers, in actually reliable sources independent of the subject". There are many, many things that some professional writers capitalize and others do not, and about 95% of tedious "style warfare" on Wikipedia is about these things - stuff that people like to capitalize if they are fans of it, if it pertains to their business, if they think it's important/influential/famous, if they think doing so shows deference/respect (and they feel like offering it), or simply because they are terrible writers who think that capital letters exist for [[MOS:SIGCAPS|providing a form of emphasis]], a habit found in advertising and in some bureaucratese. These things are objectively not proper names, because they are not found consistently capitalized across virtually all of the reliable source material. Instead, they are affected by partial capitalization whorls of subjective preference that reflect a mixture of non-neutral promotionalism, jargon-mongering (specialist-to-specialist writing habits), and simply poor writing skills.<p>We should not make any changes that encourage more "Give me capitalization of my pet subject or give me death!" behavior, from any quarter. The problem with moving from "always" to "consistently" in this guideline (about titles, which are the only "style" matter the community has seen fit to make a matter of policy instead of just guidelines) is that there is no clear definition of "consistently" in this context, and we already have the problem that use of this term in [[MOS:CAPS]] has resulted in about two decades of protracted battlegrounding to force WP to capitalize various things that certain editors badly want capitalized for their own personal (and sometimes third-party offsite interest) reasons. The last thing we need to happen is for [[WP:NCCAPS]] to become similarly wishywashy and subject to never-ending dispute about just how much capitalization counts as "consistently". In actual practice, the standard amounts to about a 90%+ rate, going by historical patterns of results at well-attended RMs and other debates about such matters. But the pressure from the capitals fans is never relaxed even for a moment, aiming to reduce this to more like 80%, or 65%, or 50.00001%. This is long-term problematic, because the slow-movewar gameplayers who want to over-capitalize things have a years-long obsession with getting what they want, while the vast majority of editors don't really care all that much one way or other and lose patience with it, resulting in something of a war of attrition. It's usual "civil PoV-pushing" problem that a party damned well determined to get what they want, and carefully skirting behavioral rule limits, can push and push and push for years until they finally exhaust the opposition, who all have more important things on their minds. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 19:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)</p>
**{{bcc|SMcCandlish}}If "'always' here means 'always, by competent writers, in actually reliable sources independent of the subject'", then how do you feel about the [[American Civil War]] et al?  Should that article be moved, is ''the Economist'' incompetent or is there a lack of virtue in this case in your "across virtually all of the reliable source material"?  I agree that we "should not make any changes that encourage more 'Give me capitalization of my pet subject or give me death!' behavior", but a guideline should be a realistic, not [[WP:POINT|pointily]] polemical. <small> — [[User talk:AjaxSmack|<span style="border:1px solid #004705;background:#168c1d;padding:2px;color:#e9ede9;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;">&nbsp;'''AjaxSmack'''&nbsp;</span>]] 00:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)</small>
**:How I personally "feel" about a particular subject doesn't matter much. The ngram evidence suggests that "American Civil War" is super-mega-overwhelmingly capitalized in source material [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=American+Civil+War%2CAmerican+civil+war&year_start=1980&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3] (even when American sources are excluded [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=American+Civil+War%2CAmerican+civil+war&year_start=1980&year_end=2022&corpus=en-GB&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false]). Lower-casing sources on this one are close to non-existent. So, this is consistently capitalized in reliable sources, to a level that amounts to "always" if one doesn't want to be an extreme literalist in a [[WP:LAWYER]] vein. If ''The Econonomist'' ends up being an ultra-rare hold out that writes "American civil war", who cares? WP is not written to ''The Economist Style Guide'' (and not much else is beyond ''The Economist'' and its side publications), nor does that publisher follow our style guide. The existence of conflicting styles is why we have style guidelines in the first place, so the fact that another style conflict can be found "in the wild" doesn't have any implications for our style guidelines. The existence of a style guide that might even be more downcasing than WP's own doesn't mean WP should adopt its preferences or even that internal supporters of WP having a general downcasing approach by default will necessarily agree with an "ultra-downcasing" one found externally. I may be personally "pointed" in my criticism of style-related battlegrounding behavior, but this (and other guidelines) are not worded in that way, so there's not a tone problem to address here. To the extent that the simple wording in this guideline might inspire an attempt at tedious wikilawyering by someone to rule out capitalization if one single instance of lowercasing is ever found offsite (a viewpoint the community would not accept, but which it couldn't prevent being advanced by someone), this could possibly be dissuaded by replacing "always" with what I used above: "always, by competent writers, in actually reliable sources independent of the subject". PS: ''virtual'' in the sense of ''virtuality'' doesn't have anything to do with possession or lack of ''virtues'' in the moral sense. Use of ''virtual'' as a synonym of ''virtuous'' is obsolete, probably since at least the 19th century. But you likely already know that and were joking; it's hard to tell in a text-only medium. PPS: ''The Economist Style Guide'' was apparently confusingly renamed for its 12th ed. in 2023 [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=isbn+9781800810068&t=brave&ia=web]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 10:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
:TL;DR: The threshold for capitalization or lack thereof should be the same as the threshold for a common name.
:[[WP:AT]] says: {{tq|Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.}} There is less than zero reason why the one exception to that should be the most trivial of matters: capitalization. The standard for ''American Revolution'' vs. ''American revolution'' should be the same as that of, say, ''Dog'' vs. ''Canis lupus familiaris''. In the latter case, the majority of sources use ''Dog'', thus that is the common name. In the former case, the majority of sources use ''American Revolution'', thus that is the common name. There is nothing that makes capitalization somehow magically different from every other titling scenario.
:If the title of an article in sources is 75% uppercase and 25% lowercase, then NCCAPS recommends we lowercase it. That's just plain wrong. If article titles on based on what the subject is called in reliable sources, then why should we contradict that rule for a small subclass of naming disputes? Going by sources and uppercasing the title violates no core content policies and reinforces the in-a-nutshell core of the titling policy. It's nonsense that we should ignore policy and a supermajority of sources to uphold this dubious guideline.
:Thus we should follow the sources, as we always have. The threshold for capitalization should not be 100%, nor 95%, nor 90%. It should be 50% + 1 (with a ±5 to account for the extreme influence Wikipedia has on sources' titling). {{ping|Cinderella157|SMcCandlish|AjaxSmack}} What say you? Regards, [[Special:Contributions/Chicdat|🐔]]&nbsp;[[User:Chicdat|Chicdat]]&nbsp;&nbsp;''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User talk:Chicdat|Bawk to me!]]</sup>'' 22:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
::"The threshold for capitalization or lack thereof should be the same as the threshold for a common name." You're welcome to that opinion, but it is not the consensus, which has been stable for around two decades. You can rant all you want about something being "wrong", and all that tells us that is that you have [[Linguistic prescription|prescriptivist]] viewpoint that is incompatible with neutrally editing encyclopedia style-guideline material. We have a very high standard (amounts to about a 90%+ capitalization rate) for the specific reason that WP avoids all capitalization and other unnecessary text stylization of all kinds in all cases, and only permits it when the RS usage {{em|overwhelmingly}} prefers the stylization in a particular instance. Your "50.1%" idea is utterly incompatible with that goal and practice. And is a perennial bad idea.<!--
--><p>The actual result of trying to implement that would a never-ending shitstorm of "style warfare", with every editor who had nothing better to do desperately trying to manipulate source stats to get across the 50.1% or 49.9% "magic line" they wanted, and for every case it could be reopened again and again and again the moment any new sources appeared. This is all avoided by a simple rule: if the sources demonstrate that the capitalization is optional, then we do not use it. Ultimately, there is no connection of any kind between COMMONNAME and NCCAPS/MOS:CAPS/MOS:TM. Your idea of trying to equate them is like saying "since I have to take 500 mg of drug A for problem A, that means I must also take 500 mg of drug B for problem B", which is apt to kill you. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 07:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)</p>
::I have a couple of thoughts on recent comments.
#{{bcc|SMcCandlish}}Having "always" in a guideline borders on bizarre.  "Always here means "always, by competent writers, in actually reliable sources" is not compatible with ''The Economist'' not capitalizing "American Civil War".  ''The Economist'' is reliable with at least some competent writers and is a major, influential source.  If "in actual practice, the standard amounts to about a 90%+ rate", then that's what the guideline should read.
#"We should not make any changes that encourage more 'give me capitalization of my pet subject'..."  I agree, but that already happens even with the current guideline.
#{{bcc|Chicdat}}"There is less than zero reason why the one exception to that should be the most trivial of matters: capitalization."  Maybe.  But how is "what the subject is called in reliable sources" to be expressed in ''this'' guideline?
#A practical expression of 50% + 1 is "about 60%" or "a majority"; But I agree with User:SMcCandlish who (I think) worries that a simple numerical threshold will invite some major editor wars (e.g. a majority of which sources? specialist? generalist?).
#Sentiments like "the last thing we need to happen is for WP:NCCAPS to become similarly wishywashy and subject to never-ending dispute" seems to invite titles that do not reflect the majority of sources just to avoid editor debate.  The way to avoid debating is simply to avoid debates.
::I agree with User:Chicdat that NCCAPS should not depart from other similar guidelines to this degree, especially if it is primarily for editor convenience ([[WP:RF]]).  I'm not too pessimistic to think a quality guideline can be crafted that actually reflects what Wikipedia's reality looks like (i.e. not "always")  Wikipedia can have both its own robust style guide ''and'' hew more closely to the preponderance reliable sources.
::PS: ''virtually'' means "not"; ''virtually all'' means "not all".  — [[User talk:AjaxSmack|<span style="border:1px solid #004705;background:#168c1d;padding:2px;color:#e9ede9;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;">&nbsp;'''AjaxSmack'''&nbsp;</span>]] 14:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
:::In the same order as given above
:::# Already been over that. Why would you want to have the same argument again circularly? The short answer is: See [[WP:WIKILAWYER]]. Our [[WP:P&G]] material is always to be interpreted in the sensible spirit in which it was intended, to arrive at a result that comports with consensus, never to semantically nit-picked to death to try to force a result that is opposite the intent.
:::# That doesn't make sense. Is the meaning of "more" somehow unclear? Me: "We should not eliminate traffic lights, as it would result in more automobile accident deaths." You: "Take 'em down anyway; people already die in car wrecks."
:::# Addressed to someone else, but my standard answer for this sort of thing is "Ain't broke? Don't 'fix' it." Changes to long-standing P&G wording usually have unexpected negative fallout, and I've already spelled out the nature of it in this case.
:::# Yes. The idea of using an "anything over 50%" rate as a new standard is a perennial proposition, and it never goes anywhere. I've covered why this is unworkable and wrongheaded in more detail elsewhere on this page already [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANaming_conventions_%28capitalization%29&diff=1282415658&oldid=1282357347].
:::# There's no evidence that's true at all. (And begin able to find a single outlier like a foreign newspaper/site lowercasing a term consistently capitalized otherwise is meaningless; there is probably no style question of any kind for which such an outlier could not be found. It's why we have a style guide: English is not written to a single standard, but we need ours to be.) A [[slippery slope]] argument is fallacious in absence of evidence that proposition A {{em|inexorably}} leads to result Z. Your result Z is not in evidence. Further, your seeming inability to get over the most literal possible interpretation of "always", as if we are not humans but robots parsing a programming language, is combining with your "the sky is falling" doomsaying to produce what John Perry Barlow used to call "terriblizing": "There is no limit in the imagination to how awful the {{em|possible}} can be when it is not constrained to the actual or the probable." (That's a paraphrase; I don't have his original essay about this on hand right at the moment.
::::PS: Your understanding of what "means" means is also broken. You are confusing sets with super/subsets, and engaging in false equivalence. And your desire to do so is again obviously motivated by attempting to apply robotically the extreme possible interpretation of a term.
:::In summary, it {{em|does not matter}} that in the strictest possible sense, such as a programming language construct, there is something of a conflict between the notion "always" and "virtually always". It's already understood by human readers that "always" in the context of anything to do with language means "virtually always" because all of us already understand that absolutely nothing about language usage is 100% consistent across all speakers/writers. There is no call to agonize over the word "always" when it is already understood by all readers to be slightly hyperbolic emphasis. Well, all readers except apparently one, who I don't believe actually fails to understand this at all, but is just quixotically trying to "make a point" that suits personal orderliness and rigour preferences. This kind of instructional "WP:"-namespace material is not written in a [[Register (sociolinguistics)|register]] that requires utmost precision, but is written to be understood as everyday "business-like" human language, editor-to-editor. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 00:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
:I haven't read this whole discussion, it's an easy question. Recently some have argued that 85% uppercasing isn't enough to uppercase on Wikipedia. They shouldn't be editing casing discussions in my opinion, but since we are a anybody-can-edit outfit then let's please put commonsense into play and be more reasonable with casings. 85% not enough to leave something uppercased? Words just about fail me. Lowercasers put lowercase RM's up over and over and over, and I and others have been trying to talk sense into them for 10 years, and what they do is keep putting up RM's on items which have 75-80-85% etc. usage. Have they noticed how much pushback by fellow Wikipedians they receive, and why? Commonsense should end this string of trying to downgrade obviously proper names. They get lucky much of the time, like with the wrongheaded lowercasing of the names of the Earth's tectonic plates. That's the fault of closers. But much of the time appropriate uppercasing is kept, and those of us who shake their heads and look at these editors as knowingly wasting everyone's time just keep on opposing when opposition is called for, and thus protect Wikipedia from going full-something-or-other by the downcasers getting their way, which they obviously want, 100% of the time. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 23:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
::This just means one still somehow doesn't understand the basic point of [[MOS:CAPS]] and its derived WP:NCCAPS. It emphatically {{em|is not}} about doing what a general majority of sources do. WP style is to avoid all capitalization and other textual stylization, except when (and only when) the RS preference for that style is so overwhelming that the alternative(s) are nearly non-existent. If the sources are mixed more than a trivial amount on the subject then they {{em|are mixed}} (i.e. the stylization is real-world demonstrated to be optional), and so we avoid applying the stylization.<!-- --><p>There is no connection of any kind between this concept and the [[WP:COMMONNAME]] principle, which is to choose the most frequently used name (however styled - determined by style guidelines) from among multiple clearly different names (aside from style variance) and use that as the article title (styled in compliance with style guidelines), all other considerations (i.e. [[WP:CRITERIA]]) being equal, which they often are not (COMMONNAME does not trump every other titling concern). That actually doesn't even have to cross a 50% threshold. E.g. if a writer is known by three names (let's say a legal one and two pseudonyms), and 41% of the RS material use pseudonym 1, 32% use legal name, and 27% use pseudonym 2, then WP will use pseudonym 1, absent a strong CRITERIA reason to do otherwise. The fact that both of these types of analysis involve some form of statistical assessment of RS usage is purely coincidental. They cannot be interchanged. By way of analogy, if one of my credit cards has a 19.9% interest rate, and another has a 29.9% interest rate, I cannot manage my finances by applying the 19.9% rate of card A to the bills and budgeting for card B.</p><!-- --><p>Randy_Kryn's now decade+ failure, indeed {{em|[[WP:NOTGETTINGIT|abject refusal]]}}, to understand this simple stuff (despite quite extensive discussion) is why he has such an angry, disappointed, frustrated time at [[WP:RM]] and wastes far, far too much of his (and many other editors') time tilting at RM windmills recycling the same rejected arguments over and over again. {{tq|They shouldn't be editing casing discussions}} is pure projection. About 80% of capitalization [[WP:DRAMA]] would disappear overnight if RK were no longer involved RM or capitalization discussions (in which he nearly always leaps to the defense of over-capitalization even when he has no background in the subject, which is most of the time). I like RK as an editorial presence when focused on {{em|anything}} else, but this obsession with trying to impose [[MOS:SIGCAPS|"capitalization for signification"]] on every other topic under the sun has become a years-long drain on editorial productivity and goodwill, and it badly needs to end. RK's casting of the question as a matter of [[WP:1AM|him versus]] "downcasers" (i.e. versus all editors, {{lang|fr|en masse}}, who comply with our style guidelines) is pure [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] and conspiracy-theorizing. This is not a recent or minor issue; fomenting capitalization-related discord is leaning more and more toward becoming RK's primary activity at WP. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 00:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)</p>
:::You're welcome. I've done a very good job, if I say so myself. You may have missed the successes? Anyway, you've got it all wrong (again). I'm not angry or frustrated about the casing, although the tone you read my words in may be to blame (try again, read my post in a friendly tone). Two words: 85% (or is that three?). That's what I'm talking about. Except in special cases, when it is easily shown that 85% of sources side with uppercasing, the nominator should honestly consider changing their mind and withdraw the RM. Shouldn't be opening those kind in the first place. As for being my primary activity, ah, no. Track my edits if you must. Only reason it seems like I'm around a lot is that the same editors keep nominating lowercase RM's (almost never the other way, have you noticed?) and I reply to many but not most. The lowercase nominations I agree with or am neutral about almost always go lowercase with no complaint from me. But - again, back to the 85% - so many are nominated that the luck of the draw will bring me to comment in many of them. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 02:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
::::The very fact that you [[WP:WINNING|think this is about "successes"]] and that as long as you rarely get some, dotted among a {{em|tsunami}} of community RM consensus decisions against your over-capitalizing-for-signification preferences, that you are "do[ing] a very good job", is proof positive that this is a [[WP:GREATWRONGS]] "my approach to writing is the only proper one" prescriptivist advocacy mission. As I said in the "NFL draft" dispute about which you canvassed like mad for over a week to try (in vain) to get the unnecessary capitalization result you wanted against all evidence ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Capitalization_of_NFL_draft_article_titles&oldid=1210606005#CanvassingDiffs extensive diff pile here]): "I'm really not inclined to ever drag people to ANI or thereabouts unless they're clearly WP:NOTHERE, which doesn't pertain to anyone in this discussion (including the repeat canvasser). Even if I may think some antics are outright disruptive, the end result usually comes out the way it should when there's a broad venue, and the disruption dissipates on its own afterward." But it can't happen again. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 23:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::Sigh. More corrections. Your sense of "rarely" needs fixing (either that or your memory). As for the NFL Draft debate, that was foremost and centrally about venue shopping and not the casing (remember?). No great wrongs to be fixed, confusing that with the fact that you don't have a very wise perception when it comes to reading my intent or your own commonsense when it comes to proper names and percentages. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 08:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)  
:::Wow, that's an amazing ad hominem. And you say that ''he'' shouldn't be editing casing discussions? [[Special:Contributions/Chicdat|🐔]]&nbsp;[[User:Chicdat|Chicdat]]&nbsp;&nbsp;''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User talk:Chicdat|Bawk to me!]]</sup>'' 11:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
::::That not what {{lang|la|[[ad hominem]]}} means. Being critical, for legitimate and provable reasons, of someone's long-term disruptive behavior pattern, in the subject under discussion, simply isn't it. It's drawing attention to something about the person to fallaciously attempt to make their argument seem weaker without actually addressing the substance of it. {{xt|"I think the budget should be expanded by 14% not 7% because [reasoned argument here]."}} {{!xt|"Don't trust his ideas! He's just an immigrant, who was also arrested once on drug charges!"}} That's {{lang|la|ad hominem}}. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 23:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::Nah, Chicdat is correct. Your judgement of my intent and "feelings" has always been so far off base that repeating your aspersions does apply to the wording "ad homineum". Chicdat, I've been the aim of SMc's insults for many years, but I don't complain about that although sometimes point out when he is wrong. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 08:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
:Just thought y'all may want to be aware of [[Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Overturning NCCAPS|this discussion over at the village pump]]. [[Special:Contributions/Chicdat|🐔]]&nbsp;[[User:Chicdat|Chicdat]]&nbsp;&nbsp;''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User talk:Chicdat|Bawk to me!]]</sup>'' 11:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
*The "always" standard definitely seems like an unnecessarily high threshold here. Compare [[MOS:TM]], which currently allows for the usage of stylizations (PlayStation, Deadmau5, etc.) where they are {{tq|consistently [used] by a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources}}. MOS:TM is a guideline that discusses how to approach stylizations that are much more affected than the casing of one or a handful of letters in a title; if "consistent" usage by independent RS is enough for those cases, I see no reason why it should be insufficient here. I'm not saying we need to be COMMONNAME absolutists—if a title's usage is, say, 55–45 in favor of capitalization, I think it's fair to default to sentence case due to the lack of consensus among RS—but if three of every four independent reliable sources are capitalizing a title then it's an overcorrection for us not to do so. Having a house style is valuable, but it shouldn't get in the way of following the sources. [[User:ModernDayTrilobite|ModernDayTrilobite]] ([[User talk:ModernDayTrilobite|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ModernDayTrilobite|contribs]]) 16:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
*:Yeah, something like "substantial majority" would probably work well in this case too. It is not, and cannot be, a simple majority vote, but a ''substantial'' majority is something else. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 17:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
*:Seems more like the MOS:TM wording is inconsistent. Despite using the "significant majority" wording in the description, the exceptions that you mention are covered in a bullet point that says "When a name is almost never written except in a particular stylized form, use that form." I would understand that to mean that the "significant majority" wording is a mistake and the "almost never" is the intended meaning. --[[User:Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Khajidha|contributions]]) 18:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
*::I think you're right that there's an inconsistency in MOS:TM, but my impression (going off of memory here, so no hard data) is that the "significant majority" standard is closer to what I tend to see in practice than the "almost never" standard. I don't mean to get too sidetracked, though; ultimately I think the "significant majority" benchmark is a sensible threshold for the capitalization question, even if that ends up differing from how MOS:TM handles its own categories of stylization. [[User:ModernDayTrilobite|ModernDayTrilobite]] ([[User talk:ModernDayTrilobite|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ModernDayTrilobite|contribs]]) 18:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
*:::Sounds reasonable. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 08:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
* I think there's no great difference in meaning between the "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority" criterion of [[MOS:CAPS]] and the "always" criterion of [[WP:NCCAPS]], and we've had a pretty stable interpretation around 75–80% (in my estimation) for many years.  Randy likes to look at the most recent sources only, where the influence of WP's over-capitalization is greatest, and ignore the percentages from sources a decade or two old, which is why he complains we object to capping things that are over 85% capped in sources; they're not.  He also never accounts for the fact that book n-gram stats include all the titles and headings, citations to title-case work titles, and such, which in many cases dominate, or at least inflate, the capitalized numbers.  Generally, though, he has an outsized preference for capitalization even when our style clearly indicates that lowercase is preferred.  Even a wide consensus such as we found at the NFL Draft RFC he rejects as invalid because he didn't like the forum.  No wordsmithing of these guidelines is going to change his mind, or some of the others who would prefer to just let outside sources vote on how to style things in Wikipedia. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 02:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Addressing ambiguity ==

{{u|Cinderella157}}, my edit had nothing to do with any of the above discussions, can you please provide a substantive reason for reverting? [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 13:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:The edit you would make is directly related to the above discussion where no consensus was reached here or at VP regarding this sentence. I have made you aware of [[WP:CT/MOS]] and the expectations therein. In doing that, I do not imply that making a BOLD edit was inappropriate but that it is appropriate a fuller discussion before changing this sentence.  You perceive an ambiguity: I don't. In the subject sentence, {{tq|[a] phrase is a [[proper name]] that would always occur [[Capitalization|capitalized]]}}, is a truism. The corollary of this made as the convers statement is: ''if a phrase is not always capitalised it is not a proper name''. This is also a truism not withstanding that we may see in sources aberrant occurrences (errors) where a proper name is not capitalised. The only issue with this is whether one applies a pedantic definition of ''always'' to be ''absolute'' (100% of the time without acknowledging that we might find such aberrant occurrences) or one uses the linguistic perception of ''always'' (per [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1553544/ this] source, 91-100% or similar). One might lawyer the pedantic meaning of the guidance but this would be against the ''spirit'' of the guidance represented by the linguistic perception of ''always''. It is the ''spirit'' of guidance which is paramount (see [[WP:P&G]] and [[WP:5P]]). The above discussion boils down to one side taking a pedantic view ''v'' the other taking a linguistic view of the meaning. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 01:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
::My edit didn’t change the "always", it just made clear it referred to specific sources rather than all sources. Effectively it clarified the definition of a proper name for WP purposes [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 04:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
::It was actually to address situations like in [[Talk:Ethiopian Revolution#Requested move 31 March 2025|this RM]] you started, where your nom seems to interpret "always" as referring to all sources. [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 04:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::What I said in the OP at [[Talk:Abbasid revolution#Requested move 31 March 2025]] was: {{tq|... this is far from always capped in sources and therefore not a proper name that we should cap per NCCAPS.}} The evidence from [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Abbasid+Revolution%22&sca_esv=f65d9110a0398786&udm=36&ei=iGPqZ9rEDJ24vr0P0tGBwQ8&start=10&sa=N&sstk=Af40H4W33ym40etP7JPokME_3jG3HtawFl1oqFZZXER_tIE3T4ZG04153wUKMMUC2LPyx0LsqTnW1UsTG_7l-3aEEVwzJP8inWPBuA&ved=2ahUKEwjaqPTpg7SMAxUdnK8BHdJoIPgQ8NMDegQIARAW&biw=2172&bih=1077&dpr=0.88 google books] and [https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?start=10&q=%22Abbasid+Revolution%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=2021 google scholar] is consistent with the [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Abbasid+Revolution&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=true ngram] showing less than 50% caps. We are not talking about a borderline case here. I am not making a pettifogging argument against the ''spirit'' of P&G as some appear to be doing with [[MOS:GEOCAPS]] or [[MOS:MILTERMS]]. What I have said is true - it is far from always capped in sources. I might have said, ''it is far from consistently capped in sources''. I don't think that my OP indicates that anything is broken at NCCAPS. Is the corollary of the subject sentence false? In reverting your edit, I was not saying that we should not change NCCAPS at all. What I am saying is that a change to this particular sentence should be done with more input to affirm a consensus for a proposed change. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 01:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::::That’s a different RM, the one I linked was [[Ethiopian Revolution]], which ngrams has as 60% capped. I think it’s very easy to misinterpret those noms and the current wording as expecting caps always in 100% of sources, and tbh this was how I first interpreted it. Adding the wording from [[MOS:CAPS]] addresses this imo. [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 08:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::My apologies that I got the wrong RM; however, the wording I used was the same. While the ngram for "Ethiopian revolution" [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Ethiopian+Revolution&year_start=1900&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3 here] shows perhaps 60% caps, that ngram does not exclude non-prose terms which causes an over-representation of caps. An allowance of 10% is often applied as a rule of thumb to accommodate this or modify the search phrase to one which excludes non-prose usage - eg "Ethiopian revolution was" [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Ethiopian+Revolution+was&year_start=1900&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3 here], which shows less than 50% caps. While you might argue 60% as a substantial majority, 60% is still a long way from ''always capped'', which is what the truism tells us. When you say 100%, you are applying a semantic definition and not a linguistic perception of ''always''. Now, we could continue to argue the point between us but that was precisely why I reverted the edit. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 23:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

== [[:MOS:CAPS]] has an [[WP:RFC|RfC]]==

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Information.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>'''[[:MOS:CAPS]]''' has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the '''[[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital_letters#RfC_on_the_use_of_Google_Ngram|discussion page]]'''.<!-- Template:Rfc notice--> Thank you. [[User:TurboSuperA+|<small><span style="background:#000;color:#FFF;"><em><b>TurboSuperA+</b></em></span></small>]][[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<sub>(connect)</sub>]] 14:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)