Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 24

src: static.independent.co.uk

Video Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 24

Poin-poin Bullet

"In the list, if each item of the list is a complete sentence, it should be capitalized like any other sentence.If the list item is a sentence fragment, then the capitalization should be consistent - the sentence should be applied either to all or nothing of the item See WP: Manual Style à , § Bulleted and Numbered List. "

Can we turn this into "Utilizing the first sentence from bullet point"? Manual of Style has done this in itself, and besides, it is a convention taught in every K12 school when they first teach children to edit PowerPoint presentations. The same goes for the first word of the table cell. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:07, March 27, 2017 (UTC)

• I am against this "creep instruction" example. There are cases where bullet points are used to create lists that do not have capital letters if they are written as continuous text. Leave it to the editor. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:21, March 27, 2017 (UTC)

  What he proposes actually removes instructions (about what to do when items are not sentences), and sounds lame because who will not limit the first sentence and any subsequent sentences? Dicklyon (talk) 15:09, March 27, 2017 (UTC)

1. Once the list is bulleted, by definition, this is no longer a continuous text. Therefore, have already followed conventions other than ordinary paragraphs (by being bulleted in the first place).
2. What I am talking about is treating the points (or table cells) like sentences, in terms of capitalization but not always punctuation. If you've ever taken a tutorial on PowerPoint, you know that this is a positive aesthetic convention. If each Article agrees (by consensus for a particular Article) to drop all aesthetics for the sake of the minimum truth of grammar, than that the decision will involve plain text (without tables or bullets).
3. There will be some exceptions where capital letters alter the meaning (for example, PH is a phosphor-hydrogen ion, whereas pH is the logarithm of the percentage of H ion released into the solution). Even then, it's usually only possible to re-alter a sentence or fragment so terms like "pH" are not the first word. However, I would support writing exception exceptions for such cases. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 24

Capitalization in ice hockey list

Is this this correct? This user always restores capitalization and I can not find anything in MOS: CAPS who will approve or disapprove of the edits. Any thoughts will be appreciated. - Sabbatino (talk) 09:08, April 15, 2017 (UTC)

IMHO first sentence of MOS: CAPS apply: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization." The capitalization you are referring to is certainly not necessary (and in my opinion, does not mean). It might be better to involve other editors on the talk page (of course politely). --Ã, Stanning (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

No title space is used in the article. Not in the header, table, infobox, or even title .Primergrey (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Relevant link is MOS: HEADCAPS. Primergrey (talk) 19:08, April 15, 2017 (UTC)

src: cognitiveseo.com

God

I need some guidance on whether to use the word "god" when using words in a conceptual context (non-denominational). For example, would we write: "The Delta House Brotherhood requires that its members have faith in the God," or "
The Delta House Brotherhood requires that its members have faith in God" /i>? Blueboar (talk) 11:51, April 15, 2017 (UTC)

In a conceptual (non-denominational) context, with infinite articles, "gods" are not capitalized. When referring to a particular deity, with a definite article, it is usually capitalized, as in "Gods". IMHO sample sentence You should read "The Brotherhood of Delta House requires that its members have confidence in a god" a . " --Ã, Stings (talk) 17:09, April 15, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I agree that it must be lowercase if we include unlimited articles, and capital letters if we include definite articles. But what if we do not include the article at all?

(just to expand... the problem is that including unlimited articles - belief in the god a - carries the implication that Delta requires confidence in certain gods, for example, they need trust in the Roman god Bacchus... it would be accurate to say "Delta requires faith in gods." This implication is avoided if we do not include any articles - certain or uncertain - and say "trust in god/god." The implication is that the required faith is open. "So which capitalization is correct when you do not include a definite or uncertain article? Blueboar (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Unless the god's name is "God", he needs such articles before; and no matter if it is a or that , it should be lower case according to our convention on word god . Primergrey (talk) 23:27, April 15, 2017 (UTC)

understand... thanks. Blueboar (talk) 11:51, April 16, 2017 (UTC)

@Primergrey: Our devotion about the word god is MOS: CAPS # Religion, which says: "The proper name and title refer to the god is capitalized." Then follow the list of words, "God, God, Freyja, God, the Most High, the Messiah ." So when the word god is used as the title of the divine reference, it is capitalized, as in God or God (meaning "God"). When the word lord is used as the title of the god reference, it is capitalized. Etc. Therefore when the word god is used as the title of the divine reference, it is capitalized. --Ã, Stanning (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Blueboar: I'm not sure what "belief in God" means. Does it mean something different from "believing in a god"? Either way, it's not capitalized in such a context. "Gods" will only be capitalized when the word is used as a title that refers to a particular deity, which will be identified in its context. I have only ever seen the word used in this way with a definite article, "The God". --Ã, Stanning (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

preschool title on a phrasal verb (or a preposition that should be used as part of a verb phrasal)

After the latest movement per Talk: Bring On the Night (song) and Talk: Hand On the Torch, a central discussion was suggested by Martin. Therefore, I started a central discussion here. How do we handle titles that might bring a verb or phrasal preposition that looks like part of a phrasal verb, like "Bring On" and "Hand On"? --George Ho (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

src: cloud.netlifyusercontent.com

ALLCAPS for words on the memorial

This has appeared recently on Wikipedia: The article candidate/Norwich War Memorial/archive1, where arguments are being presented that it is more important to stick with the source (which seems to use all the capital) rather than following MOS: ALLCAPS. What do others think? John (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I think MOS: ALLCAPS is clear and includes such inscriptions - they should be in sentence boxes. The MoS is more than just an ordinary guide. - Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, the MOS is more than just an ordinary guide, but the MOS itself really says that it's okay to make occasional exceptions and use common sense... so, we can leave it alone without "breaking" MOS. Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Exceptions already registered. This is not one of them. Primergrey (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

But MOS: PMC says "In direct quotes, maintaining the dialectal and ancient spellings, including capitalization..." - Preparation (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree it is potentially confusing, but if you read from there it says: "Quotes are not facsimile, and in many cases it is not desirable to duplicate the original format.formatting and other typographic elements citation text must be aligned with conventions Wikipedia English without comment provided that it will not alter or obscure the meaning or purpose of the text, this practice is universal among publishers. This is a change that makes no difference when the text is read. "John (talk) 19:39 , April 29, 2017 (UTC)

Yes. This is why articles on roads, stations, and many other things are mainly identified by the sign not in all caps. Primergrey (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, so please correct the existing article where the inscription is reproduced in capital letter. This is one to start: Temperance Fountain (Washington, D.C.). --Ã, Stanning (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

"The MoS is more than just an ordinary guide". I disagree, whenever it is suggested that MOS is policy, there is no consensus. Whenever it is suggested that MOS beats WP: AT (which takes its rules from following source) there is no consensus. IMHO MOS is too prescriptive to be taken as anything but a guideline, especially because it's so big that it often violates WP: Local consensus because there are not many eyes on large parts.

In this case, the prohibition to USE LEGS IS BECAUSE OF CAPS USE IN THE NEWS GROUP AND IN EMAIL, ENTERED AS SHOUTING. Now it is embedded in textual interpretation in electronic media, that many experienced internet users interpret it as shouting (and feeling uncomfortable) if things are in uppercase.

"The remarkable thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose" (linked to various people). MOS is so large and blurred, which can emphasize parts that are considered relevant to support certain views (such as User: Stanning and Users: John did above).

I think it depends on the context of the text. In case the article is being discussed, if the editor before it is prepared for FAC is satisfied to save the quotation in CAPS, and they still want to do it after being informed about MOS content: PMC/MOS: ALLCAPS then I suggest leave it alone because MOS is the guideline instead Policy. - PBS (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

But I think that would mean I'm against, which probably means they do not get stars. It seems embarrassing. --John (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

WP: AT points to WP: NCCAPS for hat related issues. The NCCAPS is derived directly from MOSCAPS. Primergrey (talk) 11:54, May 1, 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what the last statement you want to prove as NCCAPS is a non-policy guide, but in reality NCCAP is about three and a half years older than MOSCAPS:

• NCAPP: August 4, 2002
• MOSCAP: February 24, 2006 (moved from MoS)
• and MOS does not contain anything in the cap when NCCAPS is created (see here).

- PBS (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Is MOS: CAPS outdated as a guide?

The latest experience in RM discussions shows that most editors do not care at all about hat guides, and that those who care about caps are often fine with ignoring guides and going with their preferences to limit things they think are important (the MOS : CAPS says not what we do on WP). See eg closed RM in Talk: Cambrian Line # Ask for a March 4, 2017 move that is open for a month and ends with a bond between some who want to ignore the guidelines and some who want to follow it, despite the overwhelming evidence that most sources do not limit the line there; and open one in Talk: Penistone Line # Requested move April 16, 2017 which has pulled a bit of response. Should we just give up, and say all the fine names to be treated as the right name, even when the source clearly shows that the hat is not needed? Dicklyon (talk) 15:13, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

I do not think we need to undo the guidelines... it serves as a good "rule of thumb" when the editor is not sure whether to use it or not. Problems arise from treating guidance as "rules", and trying to "enforce" what the MOS: CAPS suggest. I think we can do more to submit to the (local) project level consensus... and be more willing to allow exceptions for our guidance. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

But what's the point of having guidance if it does not guide edits? Do we only allow IDONTLIKEIT exclusions for all guides? I think we have a guideline that says local consensus is less than the guidelines, generally (WP: CONLEVEL). But we see no local consensus to not allow MOS-based improvements. This seems to be broken. This is not "enforcement", but about what constitutes "improvement", I think. I always think "enforcement" is a very weak concept created by those who do not like to follow the guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar. There is nothing wrong with MOS: CAPS: actually very clear: "The right names for places, people, certain terms, etc. are capitalized according to standard usage." It seems to me that arguments in your case do not challenge the validity of MOS: CAPS - basically they are just disagreements as to whether the name of the railway line is the right name. I do not think you tend to get consensus about that. --Ã, Stanning (talk) 16:28, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

"Standard usage" is somewhat vague, but MOS: CAPS starts with "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization." How to limit things that do not fit most sources? Not at all, I think, but people are arguing for things they think should be treated as the right names, without any serious proof, and that brings because so few people care about the guidelines, it seems. Reasons such as "Google's quick checks" are denied, or "capitalization for clarity" in explicit opposition to guidance (by someone who believes that "We must avoid a large number of moves until the MOS is completed"), or "from us who use it" silly, unrelated to the guidelines. If the guidelines are ignored and the argument wins, what's the point of the guideline? Dicklyon (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome of this discussion, I have to agree that "standard usage" is unclear. Too blurred in my opinion, because how is it defined? If you find 100 blogs with the wrong capitalization of something, does it override an official source? If so, why? There are many people out there who do not even understand the typical MOS guidelines, much less care about them. I think "standard usage" needs to be updated for something more easily defined and approved, and I would say that the official source is the most important of all. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 13:03, May 14, 2017 (UTC)

It's not outdated. Although you have shown that some people do not follow it, I hope that some people secretly do it - they just look at the guidelines and accept it, without coming to the talk page to say they agree. And I think that accepting the project level consensus is a violation of WP policy: LOCALCONSENSUS. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:33, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

But if people do not talk to support guidelines, they do not do much good. Dicklyon (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on in my User Discussion page on whether the guidelines suggest respecting the capitalization of a definite article when the official source does so. It would be nice to read some other point of view on this issue. User_talk: ThunderPeel2001 # Capitalisation_of_.22the.22 Thanks. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 13:09, May 14, 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

About all the comments above: first, can we discuss our style guide?

With respect, I think people talk to each other a bit. I read a very different problem here and I would appreciate some clarification. On the one hand, I see frustrated editors who are denied to observe style guidelines, by editors who either do not know, or do not care, what those guidelines are. Or who try to carve some special exceptions to them. While others seem to argue that style guides are unclear or just debatable and can not be implemented as a matter of practice. Others seem to advocate for revising the guidelines in several ways. So I think we should be clear about our goals here. First and foremost, I think we should try to determine the validity and enforceability of the style guide itself, before we go further down the rabbit hole of the individual guidelines.

Secondly, and more importantly: "... before we get further down into the rabbit hole of the individual guidelines": Um, no, but thank you for dismissing the interests and concerns of others. This discussion page is there at all for discussion of the increase in the guidelines (see WP: TALKPAGE and WP: NOT # FORUM), although it has developed a side function to discuss article compliance with it, as there is no MoS Notary (or MOSCAPS which is narrower). It simply does not exist as a vehicle to challenge the validity of the guidelines, let alone have it be some "goal" to achieve before we use the talk page for real F'ing purposes. It really happens that the shift in language usage means we need to revise some things. Job title capitalization has shifted (very firmly, toward lowercase) in off-WP publishing over the past 1.5 to 2 decades. So it makes sense that this will be discussed on the MoS talk page about capitalization. It has also happened that not every phrase on the MoS page is absolutely perfect in the first written form. So we often discuss the words of individual guidance lines, like all the guides and other policy pages. If you find out that here is a rabbit hole that does not interest you, switch to a page that interests you better; do not troll with potshots about how unbalanced the discussion is for you. If someone wants to "challenge" the "validity" of WP guidelines elsewhere, see WP: Policy deletion # Editing and discussion and WP: Miscellany for deletion # Policies, guidelines and process pages - try to get rid of guidelines that have disagreements with, dislike , or does not feel important, is considered disturbing. In the end, this may really just go down to WP: COMPETENCE: A good person is comforatble working in an environment where there are some obstacles they may not have a lot of personal control over and which does not suit all their personal preferences, or they're not.

Move: The first error "enforcing MOS" and "ignoring MoS" is the presumption that you should read and follow the MoS for editing here. That is not true. If you continue to add new, inappropriate material, people might be a bit annoying to you, but we want new content far more than we want for content to be perfect in the first draft! MoS especially for WP: GNOME, as cleaning checklist. The second reasoning weakness along this line is the belief that the community is somehow powerless to place content in accordance with the MoS and store it there. It does not (although it often has a higher priority, much of this cleaning does not happen until GA or FA considerations). If, once you know the point of the MoS (or any other guidelines or policy issues), you go around and change the existing content so that it does not comply with the guidelines or policies, or interfere with other editors who comply with them, you end up in WP: ANI or WP: AE for annoying editing and having your editing rights restricted if you do not stop. If you are really pursuing some kind of "language correction" advocacy campaign, you may get unlimited blocking as WP: NOTHING to do encyclopedic work. Has happened before, will definitely happen again. The presumption that people routinely {[em | opposing}} MoS (ie being aware of what it says, and deliberately editing it) is wrong. It quickly causes conflict with other editors, which ends on a bulletin board. I can count on my fingers the number of editors who express such intentions; most of them are not here today, and those who have given up that "insurrection" mindset. That "we should try to determine the validity and enforceability of the style guide" is unreasonable on his face, in every way. There is no question of "validity", as a matter of WP policy on consensus and guidelines and policies. But even our policy is not law and Wikipedia has no police power, so the "enforcement" is conceptually misdirected (the only term used is the administrative enforcement of ArbCom's decision, which is directly modeled on legal nonsense, and we largely avoid all WP : DRAMA as much as possible); and legal issues such as WP: COPYVIO. Analogy to a newspaper that might fire you as a journalist for not absorbing their style guides misplaced; we are all volunteers here, and MoS is not an employee's manual. Aspects of the style guides that the community really wants to be a policy rather than codified guidelines are like that, in WT: The title of the article (and there is a serious discussion to incorporate most or all of it back to the MoS as a guide). The main part of the MoS says exactly what it should be, and arrives after years of bargaining. It is meant to be flexible (which is not "vague" or "plin plan"; it is the absence of creep instructions). The more inflexible MoS the more people have shitfits about it (and the decisive nature of his words in many places is largely due to a single editor who has been inducted, and whose "set" is slowly removed). If anyone thinks that the community is prepared to treat more style problems as an actual policy, you are very misreading the signs. Neither does anyone who thinks that the community is ready to remove the styles and titles of centralization and restore the early 2000s with a Project wiki that has full control over their "topic"; The confidence in project wikipedia as giving any value to Wikipedia at all is at the lowest point all the time, and communities that crack down on territorial behavior (mainly because of condensed editorial pools) are at their highest point all the time. All of this is "just a guideline" to talk: See WP: PAG, in the section on guidelines. "Guideline" does not mean "I can ignore it just because I feel like it". Every time someone says "just a guide" it means a) they have not read the policy, and b) they are looking for reasons to do something contrary to consensus. See also WP: NOTGETTINGIT.

"People talk to each other". Generally not. People who do not want to accept that this community has rules (or policies and guidelines, or community norms and expectations achieved with consensus, but you like to conceptualize these things) usually talk in the past and try to talk about everyone who understands it is already. People I can not hear-you seem to think that if they stick with it they will eventually "win" through friction, and not change gears until they are expelled as a nuisance (see WP: Editing austerity), or they absorb the spirit community and fully part of it, instead of positioning itself as WP: GREATWRONGS outsiders who campaign for change. Long-term participants rarely talk to each other.

"[People] who try to carve out certain exceptions" are not. 1 problem when it comes to style, title, disambiguation, categorization, and similar stuff on wikipedia. Almost all "style" -related disputes (to put everything under one label) are directly caused by them. This is exactly a decade ago and will be true a decade from now. Almost everyone who arrives here believe in their own minds what is "right" with the use of language; very few of them have the educational background to realize that the idea is an untenable illusion, and that what Mrs. Mortensen taught in seventh grade was only a subjective combination of conflicting, and well-worn style choices when it was taught. Most of them also come up with "my favorite topic is miraculously special and your damned rules do not apply to it" sentiments, which should be removed slowly. Even after they begin to absorb all of this, it takes a lot of time to fully understand that it is not the task of the MoS (or AT policy) to present the Truth about what is Best or Right or Ideal. Internal WP guidelines or policies are not an article; people have a lot of difficulty in internalizing it, and still want the MoS and other guidelines to have a source quote in it, as if there is such a thing as a reliable independent source for WP coming to the internal consensus on how he wants to write. The MoS certainly is not an advocacy part for how other publications should be written. This is a checklist of how to do something, as an editor in this particular publication, to polish the material with minimum reader confusion, and the minimum editorial conflict over the same repetitive questions (and "repetitive" is the keyword here - if that's not a style fight keeps appearing, MoS does not touch it). MoS is a product of more than one and a half decades of compromise to arrive at a particular choice (sometimes always arbitrary); consensus has most often come up with the option to leave the option up to the editor when there is no encyclopaedic reason for WP to have either way preference (which is why the MoS is small compared to New Rules of Hart or The Chicago Manual of Style ). We've had more than almost everything a few times (chances are you will not raise a new issue here). It will never please everyone at any point. And the mode of operation is stability, not novelty, and not micro-management. If someone considers them a cursed supergenius who happens to know more than 15 years of combined WP editors, they have serious problems and we can not help them.

"[Some of the MoS arguments are] just debatable". Who does that? I want to see this argument presented, so I can argue with it, which will be easy. â € <â € << br> - SMcCandlish ? ? Ã, Â ¢? ^? ?? _? ? ^? ? 05:06, July 5, 2017 (UTC)

src: thinking.is.ed.ac.uk

Consistency, related to the implementation of the job.

Just a comment. Sure hope some editors out there will be consistent about the governors of the US state & amp; lieutenant governor. Most of these articles have Country Governors in their intros, but some editors change the little hands full of this article intro to the state governor . GoodDay (talk) 11:46, May 17, 2017 (UTC)

• Um... can we see the example, because according to the guideline "Joe Blow is the third Governor of Kansas " true... because "Governor of Kansas" is similar to "King of France "or" President of the United States ". However, "After serving as Governor , Joe Blow retired and moved to Florida" is not true. In other words, sometimes it is true to capitalize. Blueboar (talk) 13:59, May 17, 2017 (UTC)

Rudy Perpich for example, @Wukai: just returned my corrections there, I need to recover it. Another disagreement is with David Paterson with @ X4n6: . - GoodDay (talk) 20:32, May 17, 2017 (UTC)

@Wukai: just returned me again in Al Quie and Wendell Anderson. - GoodDay (talk) 21:02, May 17, 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned in your discussion page, I do not think your narrow focus on the governor of the US state is helpful. They do not get special treatment under style guides, or anywhere else in the project. The wider concern here is how this project addresses general job titles - not individual titles in particular. X4n6 (talk) 23:24, May 19, 2017 (UTC)

WHY do you just chop off David Paterson's article, while ignoring all other biographical articles of the governor of NY? You are very focused on the one article. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, June 11, 2017 (UTC)

You are consistently mistaken. On all matters. X4n6 (talk) 07:54, June 14, 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Overcapitalization of "vol." and "no."

Please see Wikipedia talk: Manual Style # Overkapitalization "vol." and "no.", which is also relevant to MOS: CAPS, but related to the material on the main page of MOS. - SMcCandlish ? ? Ã, Â ¢? ^? ?? _? ? ^? ? 22:34, July 4, 2017 (UTC)

src: www.zonaeuropa.com

Using plc (not PLC) after English company name

Please see the discussion on Wikipedia speaks: Manual Style/Abbreviation # Widely used abbreviation for public limited company

Someone just changed the MOS: ABBR to allow "plc", mimicking certain company preferences. This appears to be contradictory to: a) MOS: CAPS on acronym treatment, b) WP: MOS on acronym treatment, c) residual MOS: ABBR on acronym treatment, and d) MOS: TM does not mimic the stylization of the trademark. - SMcCandlish ? ? Ã, Â ¢? ^? ?? _? ? ^? ? 01:29, July 5, 2017 (UTC)

MOS: JOBTITLES

With regard to [1], what is the convention for an American job title, such as the Interior Secretary? Should they be capitalized or not? DrKay (talk) 08:49, April 17, 2017 (UTC)

You are correct. The word "secretary" is part of the full title, not a common word. That's right to say "cabinet secretary", but it's "Secretary of State" or something like that. oknazevad (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Per MOS: JOBTITLES, close when attached to a name, or when used to refer specific and obvious people instead of their names, not when talking about positions. So Secretary of Interior Zinke, but not Zinke is interior secretary. The title of the current article, the Home Secretary of the United States seems wrong, because it's about work, not the current shareholders. Dicklyon (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course, the reference to the Secretary of the Interior of the United States for "Secretary" appears to be a violation of the MOS textbook: JOBTITLES according to any interpretation, since "secretary" is a common noun instead of a stand-alone title. And per the top, I read the correct usage - depending on the context - as the secretary of the Interior. As in "all district attorneys meet," not "all District Attorneys meet." X4n6 (talk) 22:54, May 19, 2017 (UTC)

See below, inconsistencies decapitalization in some article intro, annoying. For example: the governor of the US state. GoodDay (talk) 11:48, May 17, 2017 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the "Secretary of the Interior" is the proper name to be capitalized, such as the Queen of the United Kingdom, the President of the United States, or (the example given by the guidance) King of France. DrKay (talk) 17:51, May 20, 2017 (UTC)

"Interior Secretary of the United States" but without the preceding state or the following name, "interior secretary". Primergrey (talk) 17:57, May 20, 2017 (UTC)

FYI, there is an ongoing discussion about the capitalization of the "mayor" in the article title of the mayor's/mayor's list found in Talk: List of the mayor of Finsbury. According to other editors, most of the list is in Category: List of mayor premises in England (and in subcategories) currently using "Mayor" rather than "mayor". --BarrelProof (talk) 22:53, June 12, 2017 (UTC)

Discussion in Talk: The list of Finsbury mayors has been closed (since "not moved") and I have begun a related discussion at Talk: Bath Mayor's Register. --BarrelProof (talk) 16:18, June 18, 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, BarrelProof. Want to weigh in RfC below? X4n6 (talk) 10:31, June 20, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I think we should strive to have clear style guidelines and follow them consistently, but the questions seem difficult, so I may only allow others to decide what the guidelines should say in those particular situations. --BarrelProof (talk) 16:07, June 20, 2017 (UTC)

Discussion in Talk: The list of Mayors of Bath has been closed (as "moved all") and I have begun a related discussion at Talk: List of Lord Mayors of Birmingham. One person commented so far, who opposed the move. --BarrelProof (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

make it two opponents. I detect "crusade" to chop off these titles. Realize that the Crusades are considered disturbing, and can lead to blocking if it goes too far. Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I submitted one RM request, which was then approved for support from the Wikipedia consensus. I then submitted another RM request consistent with the consensus. I also invited participation in RM discussions in the comments on the relevant talk page (without advocating certain results when creating the invitation). What part of that behavior looks like an annoying crusade? --BarrelProof (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

For once, the journalistic style guides really provide good general advice (about the only other time they do it for our context is on the fast-moving stuff that academic style guides are not fast enough, like pronouns and transgender ). They uniformly drop the capitalization of the "president" refers to the president of the United States, except when it was before the name, used as a stand-in for the name of a particular individual, or when used in formal references to the role of a political institution (or some other related institution by name "If the president gets this treatment, so does the lower office like the state secretary (but that's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson).You can have a meeting with a US senator, but met with US Senator Tammy Baldwin. The meeting may take place at the offices of a US senator from Wisconsin, while Baldwin was elected to the office, which is from the US Senator to Wisconsin.If you return within a decade, this use may have shifted again. my own, it goes from the rampant capitalization of all job title at all times, only government and military (a nd maybe senior management) with or without a name (ca. 1980s), with the present style of avoiding capitalization except when necessary, which in fact is MOS: CAPS no. 1 rule. This downward trend has followed many similar ones; if you write something like "I am honored to be employed by the University", you may be 55 years of age or older (or write an internal memo following the institution's home style).

The title of our article United States Secretary of the Interior is correct, because it's about a single public office and has such a proper name. Some other countries also have interior secretaries (common nouns). Using "Zinke Interior Secretary" or "Secretary of Interior Zinke" is correct. But, "Ryan Zinke has a very different priority from some of the last secretaries of the interior" (common noun). "What will Zinke do as an interior secretary?" (general job title/task reference). "Regardless of the political differences with him, I'm sure Zinke will not embarrass the US Office of the Interior" (official reference to constitutional institutions). - SMcCandlish ? ? Ã, Â ¢? ^? ?? _? ? ^? ? 02:25, July 5, 2017 (UTC)

Deaf capitalization

This appears briefly before, in Wikipedia talk: Manual Style/Uppercase/Archive 20 # Use "Deaf" or "Deaf" ?. It has appeared again in Talk: Empty Orchestra # Deaf. Can we be explicit about the Wikipedia style to exploit (or not) "Deaf"? Applause! - JHunterJ (talk) 21:10, July 8, 2017 (UTC)

I think "deaf" capitalization is more of a political problem than one, and the right place to look is WP: NPOV, not MoS. The capitalized version can be used as a descriptor for self-aware sociopolitical movements, but I think that's all. --Trovatore (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Definitely "deaf" here. This is no different than capitalizing "Transgender" or "Gay" or "Atheist" or "Right Wing", etc., etc. This is a marketing style, for certain socio-political or demographic groups without any actual names actually involved (such as those for ethnic groups, certain religions, certain political parties, etc.). - SMcCandlish ? ? Ã, Â ¢? ^? ?? _? ? ^? ? 00:39, July 10, 2017 (UTC)

RFC: _Consistency_required_among_US_governors_.26_lieutenant_governors "> RFC: Consistency is needed among US governors & amp; lieutenant governor

A similar situation occurred in Al Quie and Wendell Anderson. They are the only Minnesota governor, who continues to have their intro #Governor of Minnesota decapitalized, while others are left alone. For some reason, 2 or 3 editors refused to edit an entire set of articles & amp; thereby creating inconsistencies. If we can get clarity here (on MOS) on what to do (take advantage of or chop off), then I will gladly make changes to this all bio article, as appropriate. According to JOBSTITLES, we use capital letters - unless read as "Minnesota Governor" & amp; not "Minnesota Governor" . GoodDay (talk) 15:12, June 15, 2017 (UTC)

Note also 'again'. In the US presidential intro & amp; vice president, we have ".. 45th President of the United States" in Donald Trump, not "... the 45th president of the United States" . GoodDay (talk) 16:17, June 15, 2017 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia