Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters

Manual of Style

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. For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41

Archive (capitalization)

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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 bottom of the page.

(newest on top)

• Talk:List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States#Requested_move_27_July_2019
• Talk:List_of_Presidents_of_Costa_Rica#Requested_move_25_July_2019
• Talk:Waterloo_Campaign#Requested_move_18_July_2019

Previous discussion here (list of more at bottom of that section).

OK, it's been discussed to death, but there has been no satisfying conclusion. The capitalization of Universe on that page, for instance, runs against the majority of RS. Read a pre-Internet NASA book and you see phrases such as "the sun", "the earth", "the moon", and "the solar system", all lowercase. That is because the 'the' qualifier indicates that they are not invoking a proper noun.

However, we make our own rules here, so we have mostly copied (and in turn influenced) the Internet-age publications of space agencies, which have gradually decided to throw out millennia-old conventions for (temporary) collective convenience. What can we do about this? Well I had an idea watching One Strange Rock. It envisioned a future where our descendants travel to other solar systems and refer to our own as "the Sol system" in reference to the Latin name of our sun, which is not named 'Sun'. But well, how embarassing... in the early age of the internet, the grammar politicians determined to capitalize anything there is only one immediately relevant quantity of.

Our planet (which has a crust of earth) can be called simply Earth. Our planet's moon is named Luna. The sun is called Sol; its planets belong to the Sol system. The universe doesn't have a name. I'm emphatically not suggesting that we rename all these articles to their Latin/Greek names (though they should be noted); only that we employ the proper capitalizations rather than a fragile convention that was chosen for the sake of convenience rather than proper grammar. —UpdateNerd (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sun, Moon, and Solar System are all proper nouns referring to specific astronomical things or bodies. Sun is the proper name of the Solar System's star. Moon is the proper name for Earth's moon. Sol, Luna, etc. are alternate names. The rules of grammar upper-case proper names. In this Wikipedia style is correct. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, though I disagree that they're proper names, as explained above. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Take 'Sol' for instance. Sol is the Latin word for Sun, as it is in other languages. The English word is "Sun". Both are proper names for the star. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The difference being that Sol is the personification of the sun, just as we personify planets with Roman god names like Jupiter. The word sun doesn't have the same distinction. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Sun#Name and etymology, a good summary of the words 'Sol' and 'Sun'. The most common upper-case mistake I find (and it's not that common) is to confuse the words sunlight and Sun, but the star, which most people take for granted and never think about, has a proper name. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of the section, but the problem is that that's just our evolving wiki-interpretation of the etymology, not a proper explanation of correct grammar. The sun has acquired the name Sun (and the universe Universe, and so on), but that's just the outcome of colloquialism deemed proper for day-to-day convenience (on the internet). UpdateNerd (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The NASA Style Guide] says:

Capitalize the names of planets (e.g., “Earth,” “Mars,” “Jupiter”). Capitalize “Moon” when referring to Earth’s Moon; otherwise, lowercase “moon” (e.g., “The Moon orbits Earth,” “Jupiter’s moons”). Capitalize “Sun” when referring to our Sun but not to other suns. Do not capitalize “solar system” and “universe.” Another note on usage: “Earth,” when used as the name of the planet, is not preceded by “the”; you would not say “the Neptune” or “the Venus.” When “earth” is lowercased, it refers to soil or the ground, not the planet as a whole. Do use “the” in front of “Sun” and “Moon” as applicable. See the list below for capitalization of words containing “sun” and “moon.”

I think it would be good if WP followed their advice on universe and solar system, and if we clarified that in phrases like "the moon rose" or "the sun rose" we're talking about the apparation we see, not the astronomical body, which did not "rise" in any sense. But the astronomers and capitalization buffs tend to push more toward caps than NASA or I would, right Randy? Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases such as 'the Moon rose in the east' actually do refer to the physical Moon, even though it is not itself rising but seems to rise from a Earth-centric perspective, so should remain in caps as an astronomical context. 'Getting some sun' and similar phrases would be lowercased as they refer to sunlight (I've made edits to spell out the entire word at times). Probably once a day the thought crosses my mind (or is it Mind?) that the thing in the sky is a star, even when it is seen 'rising' or 'setting'. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that we are describing an illusory phenomenon, not a real one, is what makes the case nonastronomical. UpdateNerd (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun or the Moon rising in the east is far from an illusory phenomenon. Yes, the descriptor 'rising' pertains to the point of view illusion, but the thing being described as rising is either a star or a probable fragment of the Earth condensing into what is now its satellite. The named astronomical bodies are contained within the phrase, but are not directly affiliated with the part of the phrase which incorrectly embraces the illusion. If the phenomena is being described with a compound word (i.e. sunrise) that would be lower-cased, but a stand-alone proper name used in the phrasing still refers to the thing itself. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Randy, no matter how you rationalize it, you're way out of step with reality. Dicklyon (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you knew that. In n-grams and sources you'll find that "moon", "sun", and "solar system" will not be primarily upper-cased. People lower-case them out of pure habit - a nonthinking rote action. Wikipedia takes the stand that these are names of something real (take about stepping into reality!), that "Sun" is the proper name of Earth's closest star and "Moon" is the proper name for that enormous collection of rock and soil floating overhead. Like these things aren't supposed to have proper names, according to n-grams. But yes, Sun, Moon, and Earth, when referring to the things themselves, are upper-cased on Wikipedia while being lower-cased in lots of fiction and non-fiction. And that casing should stay per, if nothing else, common sense and the accuracy and improvement of the encyclopedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not likely to accept your rationalization over the "pure habit" of the vast majority of sources. I bet a lot of people see the moon and sun rise and set without ever thinking in terms of astronomy, a habit that was well developed before astronomy came along and explained how universal gravitation could explain all this. These are not what are meant by astronomical context. Dicklyon (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what NASA suggests, you can interpret the "the" in front of moon or sun as indicating not the astronomical context for which they suggest caps. Dicklyon (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the Sun rising: Emily Dickinson, along with Steeples, Squirrels, and Bobolinks. Seriously, if the Sun in the context "The Sun rose in the east" isn't the physical star then what are they talking about? This shouldn't be in the guideline, which is why I reverted (bold, revert, discuss). Randy Kryn (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a revert, when you changed sun to Sun; it was a reversal from what everyone can see the guideline says. And we can grant that poets often have their own style; that's not what's relevant here. Dicklyon (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was a revert of an example that was added a few hours earlier (the upper case 'Sun' was in my edit summary, the revert was of the entire newly added example). Still, "What is perceived as rising if not the Sun? What orb of light floats above the land, which can apply its coat of light, star glare." asks a poet. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn:You refer to the perception of the light of the Sun, not the orb itself. Keeping in mind that any observation we make with the naked eye is of old light, which no longer represents the object. You could say the Sun appears to rise, but saying authoritatively that it does is both false and nonastronomical. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that interpretation is a nice middle ground between the current conventions and what I would like. It basically agrees with my above, but allows for the capitalization of Sun and Moon when referring to the celestial bodies in a more astronomical context. I think when you are talking about the bodies in a more cerebral/perceptual way, not involving astronomical relationships, then you could keep "the sun" and "the moon" lowercase somewhat more often.

I think there is a clear case to at least modify the MOS as such: The words sun, earth, moon and solar system are capitalized (as proper names) when used to refer to a specific celestial body in an astronomical context. The next sentence of the MOS uses the negative of that qualifier, so it makes sense to add here to eliminate contradictory info, as I just boldly did. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, do that. Also where it says "In the case of compounds with generic terms such as comet and galaxy (but not star or planet), the generic is retained at the end of the name and capitalized as part of it (Halley's Comet is the most famous of the periodic comets; astronomers describe the Andromeda Galaxy as a spiral galaxy)", that's also contrary to common usage and the recommendation of at least some style guides. Since Halley's comet and Andromeda galaxy are commonly that way in reliable sources, it makes no sense for WP to have such odd guidance. But there it is. Dicklyon (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strange inconsistency. The name of the galaxy is simply Andromeda, and we should follow the same logic as with the Milky Way. The MOS says to avoid including "galaxy" with its name. I think Andromeda Galaxy belongs at Andromeda (galaxy), and should not appear the former way in prose.

Since Halley's Comet and Bode's Galaxy include a possessive, I think they're assumed to be proper nouns. But I think that's mistaken and improper grammar. Colloquialisms shouldn't be converted to conventions even if they're frequently repeated. If we interpret Halley's and Bode's to be the proper noun name, and the generic classification to only be clarifying what type of object it is, we can follow the same logic everywhere. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• N-gram indicates that we should capitalize the “G” in “Andromeda Galaxy”... the capitalized version is significantly more common than lower case. This was persuasive the last time we discussed the issue. Has something changed? Blueboar (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capital G became more prominent c. 2000, which illustrates my above point about the internet changing the way capitalizations are sometimes repeated. That shouldn't affect more longstanding, unrefuted grammar conventions. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the cap G never became more prominent. The n-grams are counting titles and headings, while we only care about use in sentences for determining whether sources treat it as a proper name. The first book I checked has it mostly lowercase in the text, but contributes a huge number of hits to the caps count. I think that's typical. Dicklyon (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This n-gram search illustrates when Sun is in astronomical context or not. Generic uses (the sun was shining, the sun was setting, the sun was hot, etc.) use lowercase, while astronomical uses (the Sun was born, the Sun was formed, the Sun was made, etc.) use uppercase. Similarly, the moon was full, shining, rising, up, bright, out, etc., or the Moon was formed, captured, made, once, born, etc. I don't think it's that complicated, Randy. Dicklyon (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with almost all of your examples, and support the "astronomical context" language. Many of your examples actually mean "sunlight" and not the Sun, and the lower-case "half moon", etc. is already in place. The only example I disagree with is the one that was boldly added in the MOS and then removed by another editor, "The sun rose". In that particular language the Sun is referenced as a proper noun, even if the context is pov and incorrect. "The Sun" does not "rise", but "The Sun" is perceived as rising. Slight but important difference. I do not object strongly to "The sun rose at 6 a.m.", and wouldn't be surprised if it is used as a MOS example, but my point is that this combination of words references the astronomical body although in an incorrect context. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's just wrong. The sun rising is not about astronomy. Look at sources. Dicklyon (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this widespread agreement, I propose we put back UpdateNerd's edit to illustrate it. Anyone (other than Randy the great capitalizer) object? Dicklyon (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the topic of the universe at large. Perhaps when discussing its formation and cosmology, particularly in light of string and multiverse theory (which suggest that there are more than one), we should capitalize it—same logic as with the Solar System. But in a nonastronomical context, such as "Alan Watts compares the universe to a fishbowl," you are way outside of talking about the proper noun. There's no reason to capitalize generic terms in that realm. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UpdateNerd, what you are proposing is "capitalisation for distinction". I understand that this is specifically oppose by the MOS in a general sense. However, the present guidance is, in effect, to capitalise universe and solar system for distiction (as is the Galaxy, when referring to the Milky Way). I would agree with you that the capitalisation is largely incorrect. What constitutes a proper name is poorly understood in these types of cases. It is a fallacy, both logically and onomastically to state: specific referent = proper name = capitalise. These three sets are not mutually inclusive. However, this is the arguement most commonly percieved to be correct but ill-founded. It persists here because: "My grade five teacher taught me (at grade five) everything I needed to know about proper names. She can't have been wrong (I was only ten)." I have tried to make such changes as you are indicating and only learnt that there are some arguements that are unwinnable - no matter how right you are. Good luck. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't "capitalisation for distinction"; it's the proper formatting of grammar, because generic nouns aren't proper nouns. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, don't get that. Above, you have suggested capitalising universe in a particular context but below, you state: "[it] is almost certainly not a proper noun in all uses." Capitalising universe for our universe in the context of other universes is certainly "capitalisation for distinction" - particularly when you consider that a key distinction between proper names and appelatives (common names) is that proper names are not descriptive. The word universe is descriptive of a concept. The same can be said of "the Galaxy". Yes, appelatives (generic nouns) are not proper nouns. But placing a capital in front of a word does not transform it into a proper name/proper noun. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have the feeling we're talking at cross purposes. You should never capitalize Galaxy on its own, and the MOS discourages including the word altogether when referring to the Milky Way. Why are we even talking about that word? A better example would be "solar system", of which there are many, but ours is selfishly called the Solar System. In that context, it's a proper noun, which is the only reason it's capitalized. It gets a little more complicated and subtle when discussing universes, probably because of their apparently infinite size; some multiverse models stem from the infinite size of 'the' Universe, which say that at yuge scales it begins to repeat itself. Hence, there could be other "universes" which are not 'ours'. All I am saying here is simply that the logic we apply to Moon/moons and Sun/suns should apply with all other examples. Incidentally, this has nothing to do with astronomy, just plain and simple grammar. (Another example I brought up last time around is fictional universes. We wouldn't capitalize the word when discussing the Star Trek universe; there are other philosophical and rhetorical examples, and ideally this should be reflected in the MOS.) UpdateNerd (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UpdateNerd, OK, we will forget about "the Galaxy", though there were reasons that I referred to it. However, I still don't get what you are saying re the universe and the solar system. The problem I have is that the comments you have made just don't appear consistent with each other, let alone, onomastic theory. In that context, it's a proper noun, which is the only reason it's ["the Solar System" is] capitalized. Proper names are capitalised by orthographic convention but capitalisation of a name ≠ proper name. There are lots of reasons we capitalise words in English that are not actually proper names. Some of these are fallacies. Please see proper name. Proper names are not descriptive (at least, not now), yet solar system is descriptive. Proper names do not necessarily have one referent: there is more than one person called Peter Williams. Conversely, a single or specific referent does not mean a noun is a proper name. The dog has a specific referent (by virtue of the specificity of the definite article, the), however; we would not write the Dog nor does writing the Dog make it a proper name just because we have capitalised the word. Is not, capitalising the word/phrase, in either case, a case of "capitalising for distinction" - particularly if we are trying to distinguish our particular dog or solar system from more generic dogs, solar systems (or universes)? That is the function of the definite article. You have also said: Perhaps when discussing [the universe] ... we should capitalize it—same logic as with the Solar System. It assumes that there is a "good" basis for capitalising solar system. Fictional universes are a separate case - where they are trademarks, these are capitalised by the orthographic convention to do so, and not by an assertion that it is a proper name. Given that you have also said "[it - universe] is almost certainly not a proper noun in all uses", I still don't get "it" (what your position is) - since there are inconsistencies in your comments, let alone with onomastic theory. sign late Cinderella157 (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re universe/Universe, nothing is being said here that hasn't already been said and no solution is being proposed that hasn't already been opposed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is saying next to nothing. Can you point to a reliable source (not Wikipedia) that capitalizes universe when referring to the concept generally? Alternatively, explain or quote the exact argument that justifies capitalizing all instances of the word universe, which is almost certainly not a proper noun in all uses. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already pointed to prior discussions. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here has ever proposed capping all instances of universe. But some (mostly Randy Kryn, the great capitalizer) do propose the capping for distinction as a "place name", unlike NASA's recommendation. In sources, caps are not common. Dicklyon (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: I really want to reopen the discussion of making 'universe' lower case. As has been pointed out, that was never actually decided in past discussions. (Please be specific about where to look if that's not the case.) Although there is some logic to capitalizing proper-noun celestial bodies within the universe, declaring that the universe itself is an astronomical body is really quite illogical. Plus, the sources strongly favor the traditional lower case.

As I've tried to explain in past rants, even if you believe in a multiverse, in which the universe is 'one' of 'many', this is actually not the case in many models, which use the words interchangeably and only refer to multiple 'universes' in the context of 'neighborhoods'. (The models with extra spatial dimensions are beyond the realm of human science, and not worth incorporating into how we address grammar on Wikipedia.) UpdateNerd (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was an RFC some place a few years ago; I don't recall how conclusive it was, but the astro folks really wanted to cap universe as a name, even though sources mostly don't. Dicklyon (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out above, lots of previous discussion, entirely inconclusive due to the crazy nature of the RFC processes, etc. I think the weird close that was appealed found a consensus to oppose the statement "The word 'universe' shall be capitalized (as a proper name) when used in an astronomical context to refer specifically to the body that is everything that physically exists." – yet a consensus to support the approximately equivalent question "Shall The word 'universe' be capitalized when used in an astronomical context to refer to our specific Universe?" So yes, it still needs to be resolved with a simple orderly RFC question I think. Dicklyon (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed ad nauseam and closed without a consensus several times. A reasonable case can be made for sometimes capitalized or never capitalized, and while I have a preference, I'd prefer to see a conclusion one way or another than the mixed (sloppy) use we have now. In the past I proposed that a random number, such as a lottery result, be used to make the choice. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SchreiberBike, unfortunately that would just start a new debate on how to generate the random number. CThomas³ (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what seems to be a lack of consensus, we should follow the status quo as established in the media outside of Wikipedia. That means using the lowercase form until it can properly be established what difference there is between the universe in an 'astronomical' and non-astronomical context. I don't see how the former can even be a thing when describing everything that exists.

(And for the weasley minded, I'll reiterate my above point that most 'multiverse' theories still depend on the entire universe being one 'quilt' with multiple patches—not a 'slice' in a larger loaf of bread.) UpdateNerd (talk) 04:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're kneading your metaphors there. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at Talk:Universe#Capitalization of Universe, which is where this subdiscussion should be taking place. Please comment there if you have the time. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See this search for "the sun rose" in wikipedia. Generally lowercase when not in a composition title. In one case, Sun is capped in an astrology context. Is that part of what we intend? Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For "the moon rose", also mostly lowercase; even some about eclipses, which I could imagine going either way, depending on whether talking about eclipse in astronomical context versus the appearance. Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the star or moon is being referenced in those statements then they should be upper-cased per proper name. How would you case the sentence "Suddenly, the Rocky Mountains rose up on the horizon" or "Suddenly, the rocky mountains rose up on the horizon"? Still a proper name in either case. The Sun is the name of a star, and is still the name of the star when being incorrectly said to be rising or setting. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

re: Rocky Mountains vs rocky mountains ... the capitalized version is a proper name (referring to the specific chain of mountains in western North America), the lowercase is not... it is generic (referring to any mountains that happen to be rocky... perhaps the Himalayas). Apply this to Sun/sun... moon/Moon. Blueboar (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking advice/opinion, please. The page Punta del Este uses lower case 'del', which makes sense to me (translated, it is simply 'of the'). The page Punta Del Este Sevens, a sporting event in that city, seems to use upper case 'D'. Should this 'D' be lower case? Thanks. -- Ham105 (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section MOS:MILTERMS seems clear to me, but some editors have recently recapitalized "army" and "navy" in United States Army Parachute Team and Don Adams even though I referred them to MOS:MILTERMS (please see the talk pages). Maybe the MoS needs more or better examples. The phrase "the words for types of military unit" seems to throw some people for a loop, especially the word types. On the talk page for Don Adams, one made the argument that "a Navy hospital" means one run by the US Navy, while "a navy hospital" means one run by New Zealand, perhaps. This is ludicrous; our readers are not likely to see differences in meaning when one word is capitalized. The MoS should make it crystal clear that common nouns or their equivalent adjectives are not capitalized even when they refer to a specific unit or organization that has a known proper name. Smith joined the army. He led his regiment up the hill. He left his job at the bank. He taught at the university. He was an army sergeant. All this even though we are discussing the U.S. Army, the 7th Cavalry Regiment, San Juan Hill, the Bank of Scotland, the University of Notre Dame. Any thoughts before I change the MoS? Chris the speller ^yack 20:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General usage in publishing appears to capitalize "Army" or "Navy" when referring to specific organizations, such as the U.S. or British armies (but lower case in the general use, as I just unintentionally did).

Here are a list of reputable sources that conform to this standard:

• "Flush with surplus Army vehicles, the War Department..." (Washington Post) [1]
• "Prior to the sentencing, Lt. Brian John, a Navy prosecutor..." (Fox News) [2]
• "The Air Force is investigating an incident in which bombs were dropped over Florida on Monday afternoon." (CNN) [3]
• "Mr. Trump named Mark T. Esper the secretary of the Army..." (New York Times) [4]

I would certainly be open to clarifying our guidance, but believe it should conform to this, since it is commonly used by major media outlets. Plus, almost all of our military articles conform to this, indicating a widespread and long lasting existing consensus on the topic. Garuda28 (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to start sourcing our house style I'd hope we would use major style guides and not ape the house style of a news agency. Primergrey (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging users who’s edits prompted this discussion for input. @General Ization: @McChizzle:Garuda28 (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Garuda28: Thanks for the ping. Your information is consistent with the information I shared with Chris the speller at Talk:Don Adams#Capitalization of "navy" (in response to which I was accused of having an "impenetrable lack of understanding of what a proper name is"). General Ization ^Talk 23:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalized when referring to a specific country's service (proper), uncapitalized in the general sense (common). That's been very consistent in my experience. That's also irrelevant for purposes of our MoS, in my opinion. If major style guides can be shown to support something different, that's what our MoS should show, although I doubt that they can be. That "burden of evidence" is rightly on those who advocate that "something different", and I'll wait. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: This is what I have seen as well. If the debate ends up in the favor of the status quo, would you be in favor of codifying this guidance, to avoid any repeats? Garuda28 (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How are you defining "status quo"? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalized when referring to a specific country's service (proper), uncapitalized in the general sense (common). That seems to be not only how it is used the vast preponderance of the time on wikipedia, but also in most secondary sources I can find (to include non-military sources). Garuda28 (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well sure, if there is significant ongoing disagreement and a clear consensus can be shown for one way or other, it makes sense to clarify the guideline to avoid further time spent on the disagreement. As for what constitutes "a clear consensus", I'm inclined to think an RfC would be worthwhile. And any consensus should be for or against a very precise change to the guideline, which should include specific usage examples such as "Murphy enlisted in the Army in 1942". For maximum benefit, thorough consideration should be given to the proposed guidance; regrettably, I don't have much time to devote to that right now. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Capitalized when referring to a specific country's service (proper), uncapitalized in the general sense (common) is what I believe it should be. Example a being "Bloggs is in the U.S. Army. The Army required him to do sit-ups." Example b being "an army is a grouping of soldiers". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster's entry for "army" (in the sense of "the complete military organization of a nation") says "often capitalized" (not "usually capitalized"), but all the examples are in lower case. That should count for something as we discuss this. Remember the overall guidance on capitalization at the beginning of this project page: "capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence". Chris the speller ^yack 03:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we cap when referring to a specific army, it's tricky where to draw the line; in the example given above "surplus Army vehicles" seems very wrong; the point is not that the vehicles are associated with a specific army, but the vehicles are army vehicles, or army surplus. Caps are uncommon in sources in such contexts, and it's too easy to claim that the army is a specific army, which is not really a good reason to cap here. Dicklyon (talk) 04:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that that seems very wrong, and I disagree that caps are uncommon in such contexts. Those surplus vehicles were from the U.S. Army and no other, and that's not an "easy claim" but an actual, indisputable fact. There may be contexts that are fuzzy, but you haven't cited one. I suggest there is a point where further added complication/nuance stops benefiting readers and becomes purely pedantic, and so I suggest that we not overthink this. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to dispute the hypothesis that (in that example) those vehicles all came from the U.S. Army. I'm saying that that makes it easy to claim that that caps should be used there, whereas the alternative would be to just treat those as surplus army vehicles if there's no particular reason to refer to the U.S. Army at that point. They're already referring to the War Department, so unless they had a particular reason to want to emphasize that none of the vehicles came from some source other than the U.S. Army, if seems wrong, or at least unnecessary and redundant, to cap there. Many sources would not do so. So if WP had a choice like that, I'd prefer to fall back on avoiding unnecessary capitalization. It would be unnecessary if we were not trying to particularly limit the context to U.S. Army, and if we were it would be better to be explicit there. Contrast with "a Navy prosecutor" and "the Air Force is investigating" and "secretary of the Navy", where the only sensible interpretation is that these are short for the particular oganizations. Dicklyon (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what Dicklyon said. And CMOS, Oxford, and our own MOS say to "minimize unnecessary capitals". In each instance a good case needs to be put as to why they add something necessary. Tony (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dick says we should say "surplus army vehicles" or "surplus Army vehicles" depending on whether it's otherwise clear we're talking about U.S. Army vehicles. By extension, we would say "the moon" or "the Moon" depending on whether it's otherwise clear we're talking about the Earth's satellite. And yet we don't apply that rule there; it's always "the Moon" for Earth's satellite. So you seek to apply different reasoning for moons and armies, and that's just wrong. It's also unnecessarily complicated, well beyond any benefit to readers.

Framed differently, if you prefer: Our "minimize unnecessary capitals" guidance leaves it to us to define "necessary", and I consider capitalization "necessary" for proper nouns, proper names, and any derivatives thereof, regardless of context. You can define "necessary" differently if you wish, but your definition carries no more weight than mine. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't say what you think I say and twist it "by extension" to even worse. Dicklyon (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. You have my !vote, and I'd appreciate a ping if there's an RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, please review the conversation I had with the OP, in which the OP refused to accept that "Navy hospital" was "short for" a hospital operated by the US Navy (i.e., "Navy" in this case is an alternate form of the service's proper name), hence Navy should be capitalized. How is that different than "a Navy prosecutor"? (Or are you agreeing that it is not different?) General Ization ^Talk 01:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't expressing an opinion on that, since I hadn't seen it, but I agree with your assessment there that Since the source uses the capitalized form, and it was a hospital operated by the US Navy, "Navy", not "navy" is the correct form. This allows that "navy hospital" could have been right if the source hadn't implied necessarily a US Navy facility (which they did by capping it). Similarly, I agree that "Navy prosecutor" is fine, when that's what it means. But the "army vehicles" was what I talking about as being more likely than "Army vehicles", even if the vehicles are presumed to have come from the US Army (which Mandruss says is indusputable, but I don't see in the source any reason to care). Dicklyon (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the source I provided for “Army vehicles” may not have been the most illustrative (and perhaps distracts from the overall point), but I believe, based on my current understanding, I am in agreement with you on this. Garuda28 (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so. Examples: "army vehicles" in British Army context; "army vehicles" in India Army context. In both cases, "army" is about the type of vehicle, not a proper name for the country's army that they're talking about. Would Mandruss say that since they're indisputably about vehicles of a specific army, they should be capped? Not sure, let's ask him. Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the reason they capitalized it was because they were former U.S. Army vehicles, rather than general army vehicles, but I also think it’s a bit of a moot point since we will almost never see this usage on Wikipedia. I’m more concerned about the “Navy hospital” or “the Air Force investigates” usages, which is (based on my understanding) what we seem to all be agreeing upon. @Mandruss: does this match your understanding as well? Garuda28 (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Wikipedia should use reliable sources for facts, not general style questions. I can cherry-pick reliable sources to support my viewpoint on style as easily as anybody, and my cherries would be equally meaningless. It will be impossible to establish with any confidence that a predominance of sources go one way or the other. I therefore suggest we cease referring to sources other than major style guides.

Again, I believe there comes a point of diminishing returns, where further "refinement", read complication, benefits neither editors nor readers. And I believe that drawing a distinction between "Navy hospital" and Indian "army vehicles" crosses that line. So, yes, I would keep it simple(r), refer to British and Indian "Army vehicles", and Stop Thinking. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not suggesting we try to let sources vote on our style. I'm trying to say the examples given were not right on the money in terms of where we would draw the line, and that the counter-examples I showed are more consistent with our style of avoiding unnecessary caps. So we'll have to just disagree on the army vehicles thing. And I'd also support what PrimeGrey is saying below as a better and easier to follow approach, though I doubt we could pass that. Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our house style is to write "the river" when writing about the Ohio River, "the desert" when writing about the Gobi Desert, "the scrolls" when writing about the Dead Sea Scrolls, "the man" when writing about the Million Dollar Man, "the show" when writing about the Late Late Show, "the tavern" when writing about Moe's Tavern, "the movie" when writing about Scary Movie, "the library" when writing about the Ottawa Public Library, etc. Capping these is unnecessary. Interpreting ambiguous guidance about branches of a particular military as representing an exception to this is puzzling. If it's necessary to specify that a navy prosecutor is part of the U.S. Navy, then write U.S. Navy prosecutor. Primergrey (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, the Queen gets special treatment. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As does the Moon. Yes, there are exceptions. Already clearly indicated in the manual. Primergrey (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, even the Queen of England gets written about as "the queen", unless referring to a particular Queen of England. Primergrey (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could the top section 'Capitalization discussions ongoing [keep at top of talk page]' be used to better explain the talk page's purpose/usage? This talk page features the blurb "The use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized by the Arbitration Committee for pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, including this page. Please consult the awareness criteria and edit carefully." which makes it really unclear whether it is even OK for someone to say something on the talk page (Hoping I won't get banned or something for this comment...) without receiving prior approval (it doesn't help that "sanction" means both permission and punishment in English, and usage can vary colloquially; and I read the arbitration committee discretionary sanctions aware aware section text about a half dozen times and I'm still not 100% sure I grok how it applies to this talk page). Also, I noticed that this section's title includes "keep at top of talk page" but the description below says "Please keep this section at the bottom of the page." I had wanted to ask a question about clarifying a caps policy (I put my question in my talk page, btw, for the curious), but wasn't sure if that was allowed. os (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not aware, you're not at risk. And DS are stupid, generally speaking; maybe they'll sanction me for saying so. Dicklyon (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I started a discussion on the page Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music on 7 July, and it hasn't received any responses. This RfC concerns the use of the word "The" in band names in parentheses in the titles of articles about songs and albums. Further elaboration can be found on that discussion page. I would appreciate thoughts from anyone who may be interested in the discussion. Thank you. –Matthew - (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There's a discussion watchers of this talk page may be interested in over at WT:MILHIST#Campaign vs campaign. It primarily is a matter of capitalising article titles per WP:NCCAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since the discussion an MilHist is considered to be in the wrong place, and has received little response due to WP:CONLEVEL, I'm bringing it here. In-depth details follow for consideration. — Marcus^(talk) 06:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The MOS is lacking coverage in the matter of military campaigns and needs expanding, MOS:MILTERMS and WP:MILMOS simply state "The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper noun, it should be capitalized" which does not solve the issue, as it remains subjective amongst editors and historians, and so WP:NCCAPS inherits the same problem regarding ambiguity in this area. For example, it is considered acceptable to use "Battle of Waterloo" (with Battle being capitalised as a proper noun) here on Wikipedia and yet something like "Waterloo Campaign" is being brought into question, with the capitalisation of "campaign" being challenged on a large scale basis, but with no qualitative evidence being given, since the only offerings are from Google N-grams, and that poses an array of problems, most obvious being that N-grams cannot be verified, per WP:V.
  • Detailed concerns: we do not know how Google selects titles to scan; because Google Books allows full, limited or zero access to books, we do not know if N-grams is also affected and if copyright issues affect the results; Google only scans a limited number of titles with search by year only going to 2008 – excluding the last 11 years of publication, and we do not know how this biases the data; OCR has limitations and makes mistakes identify characters and case – new digital-era books will be accurate, OCR scanned books will have errors – yet to filter from, say 1990 only, would be biased; context is not considered and wildcards are subjective – we don't know if results came from the index, title, headings, bibliography, footnotes, or the main body; results can be manipulated and/or misinterprested; and so on, making N-grams very hard to rely upon depending on the purpose and criteria. Without seeing the data in context we are blind. Comparing unique values in N-grams is said to work best, so "foo" and "bar" if you accept that it'll involve all scanned books, but you couldn't do the same with "Lord" and "God", for example, because Lord is also a human title of nobility as well as diety, and as religious texts can't be filterered, the result would be unreliable for. Thus my point about not being able to verify the results becomes more obvious. Even for campaigns, we don't know what the sources Google scanned are saying, to be confident of the results.

• Let us take two examples: "Battle of Waterloo" and "Waterloo Campaign" or "Battle of Gettysburg" and "Gettysburg Campaign". Moving Waterloo Campaign to lowercase is in dispute. Gettysburg Campaign was recently moved under the claim "Case norm; overwhelmingly lowercase in sources. ", and yet even N-grams fields a greater number of results for capitalised Campaign if I search without context and mixed results for "campaign" if the search is expanded with wildcards. A simple RM was made, no proof given, no notifications to MilHist, the moving admin did not verify the claim. The argument for MOS case normalising is ambiguous, not overwhelmingly clear. This case highlights the need to expand the MOS and determine whether Wikipedia considers campaign names to be proper nouns, as it has with battles. We shouldn't have to rely on trivial data such as these charts show. Assessing 0.00000001% discrepancies in data isn't a normal way to create content, and certainly not Featured Articles. We need something more in line with MOS:CONSISTENCY, since military campaigns are effectively the same thing, whether it be 1066 or 1944. Consistent naming across related articles is a good practice for an encyclopedia to adopt.
• Since "Battle of Waterloo" and "Waterloo Campaign" are both singular events, technically the same event, with the Campaign encompassing the battles which occurred within it, it makes sense to treat the Campaign as a proper noun. The same applies for many campaigns and many battles – the MOS should be used to maintain a consistent format across related subjects, not to adhere to modern cultural standards and left/right wing schools of thought (explained here) but to describe "consistent and precise language, layout, and formatting, making Wikipedia easier and more intuitive for users" per the lead of the MOS:MAIN page. This will help minimise further debate, war editing and the need to use dubious sources, such as N-grams, since most editors, who create and maintain these high quality historial articles, are unlikely to use N-grams to check if they're writing articles in line with Google calculations, when their own sources and material, books and documents, serve to guide them.
• The digitisation of books and turning it into raw data then subjectively unloading it onto Wikipedia with synthesised results is not encouraging, disparages creators and makes their attempts to write high quality material feel less impressive, especially when someone comes along and says "You can't write articles like that, because N-grams says so." Therefore, Wikipedia needs to clarify the format, allowing more preision for creators and MilHist members, without having to worry about whatever N-grams says; its results should not impress or dictate how creators can contribute.
  

There's a lot to consider, I realise, and apologise for the wall of text, but simply defering to MOS:CAPS and saying "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization" isn't going to solve the issue, per the points I raised; what is unnecessary is subjective if an established format cannot be demonstrated. The question to anyone opposing capitalised Campaign being: if the proper noun "Battle of" is considered a singular event, why can't the higher "Campaign" element be a singular event and also treated with a proper noun? I see no logic in the current debate because of this. For those that do accept N-grams as a guide of usage, for what it's worth, it shows lower-case "battle of" as more common than "Battle of", in many of the cases N-grams highlights, including Waterloo, seen here with context, and yet we've settled on upper-case across Wikipedia and that provides a comfortable standard. It only makes sense to do the same with Campaign articles.

Conclusion: although MOS:MILTERMS states "The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper noun, it should be capitalized", there is no reliable means to determine whether "Campaign" or even "Battle of" are accepted proper nouns, it's a matter of "this source vs that source", there is no consenus between historians and even different generations use different styles, making it a matter of what was common or trending at the time. This makes it more essential to make a determination and addition to MOS, as we have with so many other groups of nouns. Thanks — Marcus^(talk) 06:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the lack of standardisation in sources should be reflected on wikipedia, and instead of seeking pointless standardisation (seriously, what is the benefit?), we should take a leaf out of WP:ENGVAR - keep what the first editor used unless there is a strong reason not to, and stay consistent within the article. (Hohum ^@) 19:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP serves readers best when things convey meaning well. Capital letters have generally been reserved on WP to convey that "this is a proper name" (or "proper noun" or related). Throwing that out and keeping all the over-capitalization that articles tend to start with would be a big disservice to readers, don't you think? Dicklyon (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To start thinking that, you'd have to prove that the current house style of capitalising "Battle of..." is a disservice to readers also. Since I know of no such complaints, I hardly expect there will be a sudden outcry by maintaining capitalised Campaign in the same consistent manner. Wars, Campaigns and Battles go hand-in-hand, all different levels of a conflict. We currently capitalise two of those: War and Battle without fuss. Campaign conveys equal meaning: a military event. Reserving capital letters is not handled in a proficient manner anyway, when we find a grey area in the MOS it is discussed and a consensus reached. I find there are more grievances with regards using lower-case military/nobility ranks mid-sentence than with the use of Battle, and expect the same of Campaign. No-one was complaining about these articles using capitalised Campaign before you started moving them, you took that task upon yourself without any provocation and decided to blanket the entire MilHist campaign range with the same attitude. If you had stuck to one or two articles it might be fine, but dozens, without seeing if there was a reason for why Campaign was the more common naming convention in the first place adds to the controversy, in that you never put forward an evidence-backed argument to MilHist that Campaign is not a proper noun. It's rude to go on the pretense that you're the only editor competent in English and that the dozens of editors who created those articles are all wrong, given that you have never proven to us that "Campaign" is not a proper name. That would have been the correct process. — Marcus^(talk) 01:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest throwing out what reliable sources do. Quite the opposite. (Hohum ^@) 00:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that when some quality sources capitalize something while other quality sources do not, the capitalization of that thing can be deemed "unnecessary". Primergrey (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to ME that when some quality sources capitalize and other quality sources don’t... the issue of capitalization does not MATTER. There is no need to change it from one to the other... either way. Blueboar (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly does matter, shouty. Our MOS gives clear guidance to "avoid unnecessary capitalization". Surely if capping this or that is "necessary" then a conspicuous majority of quality sources will do it, won't they? Primergrey (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of examples of what some sources do while others don't, such as capitalising "the" before band names like "The Beatles" mid-sentence. That very singular matter was discussed at an RfM in great detail and a standard was determined and is enforced almost fanatically. This case is no different in principle, sources differ and results are mixed, but since one editor sees fit to move the entire catalogue of campaigns on-wiki without consensus it has raised concerns and due to the lack of notifications to MilHist regarding RMs and moves they will be left with a back-log of templates, links, etc not consistent with the parent article. Now you can thank Dicklyon for his lack of courtesy in notifying and involving the relevant project in this matter, almost as if MilHist's purpose was obsolete, despite their high standards all you like on that. But determining a style as unneccessary just because some sources don't do it is trite reasoning and fails to take into account factors such as the age of the source, standardisation, ENGVARs, translated materials, nonenclature, etc, as well as the historian's personal preference. Over-simplifying the matter doesn't warrant ignorance of needing to have good MOS standards, especially for the good of the project which possibly pumps out more Featured Articles than most. — Marcus^(talk) 01:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon is using an established and accepted method. Nothing needs a consensus before it is done, and to revert something with the sole rationale of "no consensus" is trite reasoning indeed. Wikiprojects are for editors to discuss improvements to specific articles. They are not intended to create obstacles in the path of normal editing. As for "age of the source, standardisation, ENGVARs, and translated materials", are you suggesting that contemporary sources should dictate style in historic articles? Imagine the Shakespeare article!! "Standardisation", by definition, would mean that the vast majority of sources were all doing something in a particular way and so would help very much. ENGVAR has no bearing on capitalization. And by mentioning translated materials, are you suggesting that, for example, in an article about a book translated from German we should cap every noun? Primergrey (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to put words into my mouth are you? None of your questions accurately relate to what I posted or you inferred your own meanings and created Strawman arguments to validate yourself (WTF has Shakespeare got to do with military campaigns?). I made no reference to only using contemporary sources and in fact endorse using sources from as far back as possible to cover a broader range of material; not sure how your mind misinterpreted on such a wild tangent. Wikiprojects don't just disuss articles, they create, maintain and improve those under their remit, via reviewing, templates, coordinated efforts; not sure why you undervalue or downplay their role, again over-simplifying the truth. Regardless, none of this relates to the main issue. On a final note, nobody has reverted Dicklyon on a "no consensus" basis – there's nothing to be gained from making stuff up like that unless you're aiming to discrediting the conversation with Ad hominem arguments. Since your attitude and desire to take liberties with truth leaves something to be desired, I'm done talking to you. Ciao. — Marcus^(talk) 04:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]