Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Proposed style noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at the village pump about creating a noticeboard (similar to the RSN, ORN and NPOVN) for people with questions about how to implement Wikipedia's style policies. The proponents say that one centralized board would be easier for editors to find than many talk pages, and opponents say that it might be a venue for forum-shopping and drama. Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization of prepositions in composition titles

We've been here before, nothing was changed, and there is still the problem. The four letter preposition rule, for all its simplicity, causes more problems that it solves, and seems to be a problem part of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Composition_titles, aka MOS:CT.

The rule is generally good. Unfortunately, the character count of the preposition is only an indicator, and is sometimes wrong. Some four letter prepositions are expected to be capitalized by the community, others not. Example problem cases include "into", "like", and "until" vs "till"

I suggest (and edited[1]) that the decision to capitalize depends on the importance to meaning of the word, and that length is only an indicator.

Talk:Smells_Like_Teen_Spirit#Requested_move_20_February_2015 is an example of evidence that guidance here is out of step, and some of the individual comments in the discussion are particularly compelling that something at MOS:CT needs improvement. As per my edit, I believe that mentioning "important", "unimportant" and "meaningful" in relation to prepositions is an improvement. It is true that long prepositions are usually important and capitalized, but length is not the definitive factor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This stems from the fact that too many editors treat our MOS guidance as "the rules". What we currently say is excellent in terms of generalized guidance (what one should usually do), but unfortunately that guidance is too often taken as being "the rules" (what one must always do) - and enforced as such in situations where it is not appropriate. I think we need to make it clearer that there are lots of exceptions to our guidance, that what we say here is not a "one-size-fits-all" sort of thing. Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You mean in addition to the giant box right at the top of the page that explains that guidelines are to be applied with common sense and there will be occasional exceptions? Perhaps put similar wording in the text of the lede, since editors seem inclined to ignore the bold-faced wording in templates at the top of pages?

On the substance, I agree with SmokeyJoe; the proposed edit is an improvement (particularly in that it requires common sense in its application instead of a prescriptive rule). —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup... in addition to the giant box. The problem of editors who can't seem to ever understand that there are exceptions to an MOS continues - despite having the giant box. This may be due to our habit of creating shortcuts, pointing to sections (and sub-sections) of policy/guideline pages... editors only read the parts of the policy/guideline that they are pointed to, and don't see (or pay attention to) the big giant warning boxes that are placed at the top of the page. Sometimes I think we should get rid of all section shortcuts (so when we point someone to a policy/guideline page they have to read the entire policy/guideline). At other times I think we need a shortcut pointing to the box so when someone argues "But that's against [[WP:<Insert shortcut here>]] we can counter it with... yes, but it is supported by WP:WHAT IT SAYS IN THE GIANT BOX. Any way... I think it would be helpful to note that while we usually wouldn't capitalize short prepositions, that isn't an "always" rule... and note that there will be occasional situations when doing so is appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with the change forward by SmokeyJoe. Per WP:BURO, rules are intended to reflect existing community consensus. It's clear consenus is that "like" and others like it may be capitalized, despite what some believe. Calidum T|C 15:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I would avoid "may" as it is somewhat ambiguous (does it mean "you have permission" or does it mean "you might do this"). Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Although I agree that the guidance should be changed, I have to oppose this proposal. I don't see how it is makes sense to talk about "important", "unimportant" or "meaningful" words in a title. How are we supposed to judge this? Why is the "like" in "Smells Like Teen Spirit" particularly meaningful or important?

I'd note that, in APA style, everything with more than three letters gets capitalised. Seems to me that would cause fewer issues. Formerip (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Above, Blueboar wrote, "I think it would be helpful to note that while we usually wouldn't capitalize short prepositions, that isn't an 'always' rule... and note that there will be occasional situations when doing so is appropriate." If we're going to allow exceptions to the guideline in "occasional situations", how does one determine what situations justify the exceptions? Following one or more "sources" (usually, in practice, these constitute pages elsewhere on the Web) is just following someone else's style guidelines—assuming that they have any and aren't just making it up as they go—rather than following our own. If we're going to do that, what's the point of even having a manual of style here? Deor (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• There seems broad agreement. To Formerip, the number of letters has proven to not be agreed as the criteria in a number of cases. Sometimes "like" is unimportant. Sometimes "through" is not. The generally understood and more correct version is that important words are capitalized, and MOS:CT goes into too much detail, by an inch.

If you don't like "meaningful" or "important" then the onus should be on you to suggest something better. How are we to judge what is important or meaningful? The question betrays an inability to understand that guidelines should not need to set out precise rules for minutiae of possible questions. Editors with an interest in a subject should be trusted to use good judgement.

User:Dicklyon reverted, and especially as he cares about these things, I would hope to see him either comment or preferably make the next edit. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

How does one determine what situations justify the exceptions?... by examining sources... But you don't just look at one or two sources. You look at lots and lots of sources that discuss the topic. You look to see if there is a broad pattern of capitalization for that specific topic. You especially pay attention to sources that (like Wikipedia) usually wouldn't capitalize short prepositions, but do in the context of the specific topic (ie look to see if there are other sources that make an exception to their style guides). By looking at lots of sources - by looking for a broad pattern, we go beyond "just following someone else's style guidelines"... we are determining whether there is a norm for that specific topic, and following that norm. Blueboar (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

"But you don't just look at one or two sources. You look at lots and lots of sources that discuss the topic." No. Such actions are moving away from relying on reliable sources. Google scholar results and google ngram results are not reliable sources. Usage cannot be reliably sources without WP:NOR unless there is a secondary source discussing the usage. Yes, use the few sources that actually support the topic Usually, this is next to obvious, and sometimes all that is possible. Most articles are not sourceable from lots and lots of sources. Some articles, such as the problematic Journey Through the Decade, have barely any English language sources.

Expecting content editors to decipher inaccessible style guides, or to carefully examine lots and lots of sources that are not even useful to the article, is not a good idea. Use the sources that support the content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, I'm guessing that you and Blueboar have no experience with the "real-world" use of style guides by publishing companies. If one works for such a company, one doesn't depend on any sources with regard to the capitalization one uses for titles of works, nor does one "look to see if there is a broad pattern of capitalization for [a] specific topic"; one simply follows the company's style guide. It's often specifically stated in such style guides that the style in which the title appears on the work itself (and, by extension, how it's treated by other works mentioning the title) is irrelevant—the only way to ensure consistency is to use the house style for everything. A number of folks hereabouts seem to think that WP:COMMONNAME applies to the styling of titles on WP. I disagree. If our MoS is to have any use at all, it should be followed in the same way style guides are followed in real life, with perhaps a very few exceptions being made in anomalous cases. Allowing exceptions on the basis of "sources" or editors' judgment is tantamount to having no style guideline on the matter at all. If that's what people want, then the guideline should just be deleted. Hedging it about with vague handwaving about "importance" of words or "common sense" is certainly more useless in practice—and considerable more confusing—than what we have now. Deor (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Deor, you would be guessing poorly. I am well experienced with style guides. They are very good to a point, and of negative value beyond some point. Here, defining the capitalized preposition by character count is such a point. Wikipedia is not like a publishing company. If you have to teach the authors an unintuitive, and at times problematic, style guide, then you have an entry barrier for authors. I support nearly every word of MOS:CT, but not the four letter preposition rule, because it routinely conflicts with predominant source usage, and routinely upsets editors. You are asserting an extremism that should be rejected. The MOS:CT can offer detailed guidance in most respects while leaving discretion to defer to source usage for prepositions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, the onus isn't on me to do anything. I'm perfectly within my rights just to object to a proposal which I think is a bad one. And it's not about allowing or not allowing editors to use their judgement. If that's what we want, then why not just say "Editors may use their judgement"? The problem is that the wording with reference to "important" etc is meaningless, because there are not really such things as relatively important and unimportant prepositions. i.e. the difference between "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Smells of Teen Spirit" may be the length of the preposition or it may be simple convention, but it is nothing at all to do with "like" being a more important word than "of", because that proposition doesn't even make sense. Formerip (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

You are right about there being no onus. I don't know why I said that. Your objection, though, is difficult to deal with. You appear to both (1) deny that there is a problem; and (2) suggest changing the four-letter rule to a three-letter rule. (1) appears to deny the apparent. (2) would just shift the disputes a little, and would involve moving an awful lot of pages for no good reason. On whether "important" and "meaningful" are appropriate words, I don't know whether they are ideal, but they strike to the heart, in that words that are important and/or meaningful, or importantly meaningful, are capitalized, and others are not. This is a rough but good summary of title case. I would trust content editors to better understand importance and meaning than for MOS authors to keep this page up to date. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

There's no way I'm going to cap five-letter prepositions like "into". Tony (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

FormerIP at 20:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC) appeared to advocate capitalizing all "into"s under a three letter rule. I'm not sure about five letter versions of into. Was that a mistake? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

dabs.com

Should dabs.com (and similar) be capitalised at the beginning of a sentence, like "adidas" becomes "Adidas" (as the MOS recommends)? My instinct was to uppercase it; the article currently has the lowercase "d" throughout. Rothorpe (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I do see a capitalized form at the beginning of the sentence in the section dabs.com#International:

• Dabs operates in Ireland under dabs.ie and has previously operated in France, however this closed at the end of May 2006.

I think a lot of companies that operate mainly, or exclusively, on the internet are using all lower-case names now, but I don't want to take the time to look for them now. That's the name of the company, dabs.com. CorinneSD (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Now I've read the original question more carefully. I think it should be capitalized at the beginning of sentences. An alternative, if not overused, would be to add a phrase such as "The company dabs.com..." or "The firm dabs.com..." CorinneSD (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Conversation at WT:MoS about making that talk page the official site for style questions

The proposed style noticeboard has fallen through. There is now a conversation under way at WT:MoS about endorsing and centralizing its longstanding Q&A function. This would include encouraging users to ask questions about style and copyediting either at WT:MoS or a subpage and not at other talk pages. The discussion is still very preliminary and participants from other pages that would be affected are very welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)