Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Proper names: Difference between revisions

Text moved in from Wikipedia:Village_Pump:

One more thing, can someone add something on ways to resolve disputes over placenames? Thanks. -- Viajero 15:32, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'd work on this request. I looked about for a proper place to put it and came up somewhat empty. I suppose under the "Style" or "Edit" pages maybe? - Marshman 23:27, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC) OK, I started a "Style" page for Proper names at Wikipedia:Proper_names. I'll work on it for awhile - fair bit of ground to cover - and others can, of course add ideas as they see fit - Marshman

See also Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(places) and its Talk page. Chris Jefferies 11:59, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

An article about Junipero Serra should say he lived in Alta Mexico not the U.S. state of California because the latter entity did not exist at the time of Junipero Serra Um? Maybe not the STATE, but certainly the Mexican possession of California. What the heck is Alta Mexico? Maybe Alta California, anyway. RickK 04:54, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The point is: there is a correct historical name and it is not the U.S. State of California. You could edit it to the correct term, and that should not give rise to any disputes (one would hope ;o) - Marshman 17:20, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Proper names of people, places, and species are taken care of, but that leaves any thing (as in "person, place, or thing") that has a proper name. For example, there is an ongoing debate about the name of the French national flag, which is known variously as "the tricolor", "the Tricolour", "(le) tricolore", etc. We could use some guidelines on "things" as well. -- Jeff Q 22:09, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Things are no different in this regard than "places" (which are in effect "things"). The French national flag would be "the Tricolor", as the term is referring to the name of a specific thing (like a specific person or place); "the tricolor" would be anything with three colors, as in "Gemany's flag, like most in Europe, is a tricolor". - Marshman 22:30, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If "things" should be treated the same as "places" in this regard, the article shouldn't distinguish between "place names" and "personal names". A "place" may be a "thing", but there are many "things" that aren't "places". Perhaps it should say "Names of people" and "Names of things", or "Names of other things" (the latter version following the species section)? Also, my research (see the above-mentioned French flag debate) suggests (but doesn't verify) that formal English usage has no officially-preferred term like "the Tricolor", although some Americans feel it should, just as some Britons feel that "the Tricolour" is the official English term. -- Jeff Q 00:45, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The operative word is "names" not persons, places, or things. I am not going to disagree with you; there is plenty of need for improvement in the article (when I get time, I'll attend to it if someone else does not first), but the rule is: whatever the noun is (and people, places, and things comes from the definition of a noun), it will take first letter capitalization if it is a proper noun—the name of something or someone. I have no idea what an "officially-preferred" term would be (in general, language does not work that way, although there might be official listings of geographical names), and yes Tricolor vs Triclour relates to American vs. Brit usage of English; but both start with uppercase 'T'. At Wikipedia (English Edition) both would be correct and may simply depend upon who wrote the article. The rule there is not to bother to change to your preferred spelling - Marshman 01:43, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What I mean by "offically-preferred" is cited in a respected reference work, which I consider better than general guidelines that are often ill-recalled and frequently flouted in practice. (Consider the Wikipedia "article titles should be all lowercase except..." policy as an excellent example of an institutionalized flouting of standard practice, which is, incidentally, okay by me.) As an example, Merriam-Webster Online cites, among its entries for federal:

3 capitalized : advocating or friendly to the principle of a federal government with strong centralized powers; especially : of or relating to the American Federalists

4 often capitalized : of, relating to, or loyal to the federal government or the Union armies of the U.S. in the American Civil War

5 capitalized : being or belonging to a style of architecture and decoration current in the U.S. following the Revolution

This strikes me as a carefully-researched official statement on when to capitalize "federal". I made a modest search for such a reference for "Tricolore" but found only the lowercase version, with no explicit statement about its capitalization. Obviously, this is not definitive, but neither is any Wikipedia article, for that matter. Therefore, I edited the article to reflect the research I had done, which appears to have been more substantial, with respect to the spelling and capitalization of "tricolore", than other contributions to that article thus far.

By the way, I didn't mean to impune your efforts to date on this article. I just thought it'd be a good idea not to leave people hanging when they come looking for rules on something like "tricolore" or "the Federal Government", which are not people's names, place names, or biological designations. Please take whatever time you need to make any changes you think are advisable. If I really have a problem with it, I can and should do it myself, eh? ☺ -- Jeff Q 04:55, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No problem. I'm happy ;) or 8^0 . You explained things better this time. I think by "official" you really mean "authoritative". I'd regard Miriam-Webster as authoritative (providing an opinion based upon experience and research) but not "official", the latter implying establishing rules or providing opinion based upon granted authority ("I'm right because I'm the government"). I think it should be "Tricolor" just as one would say "Old Glory" and not "old glory" in referring to our flag. But maybe I'm old fashioned. I find "errors" in Webster's Dictionary on occasion. - Marshman 05:45, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hey, "new-fashioned" is often overrated. ☺ If I find an authoritative source that cites a use of "Tricolor" or "Tricolour" in the same proper-name fashion of "Old Glory", I'll capitalize them in a minute. -- Jeff Q 07:02, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

i don't think there might be any divergence of opinnions on how a country names its administrative divisions. - there is that "non interference in internal affairs or something" that i think renders the name of an administrative unit immune to "neighbouring state version of a sovereign state's internal affairs or something" -- Criztu 28 June 2005 13:41 (UTC)

I removed the ß-directions. I feel somewhat bad about this since they were actually quite well written. But I don't see any discussion or vote establishing a consensus for this and opinions are clearly split, see Talk:Großglockner for example. Also note that the same logic could be used to legislate Þ out of Wikipedia - even though the consensus among those editing articles on Icelandic topics seems to be to use it. I would actually support Philip's recent note on including alternative ascii-versions but I think we should discuss it before we insert it into the guide. It was reverted where he inserted it on WP:UE. Paragraphs inserted on WP:UE and WP:MOS to ban ß, Ð and Þ have also been reverted (by myself and others). I would have reverted this incarnation of the ban earlier if I had noticed it. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We actually had a pretty good consensus in the Manual of Style when I added that and still have a substantial majority, but German-lovers (non-Swiss, anyway), Icelandics (who, you can bet, don't allow foreign letters in their wiki), and a few others continue to treat English Wikipedia as an international wiki. Perhaps one day I'll join them in pretending that the English alphabet encompasses the entire Latin-1 character set and name my first-born child Æþöñéß. --Tysto 00:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am cool with the removal of the ß directions. I wrote them, actually, after Tysto brought the subject up and I saw myself in the minority. (I like ß, too!) However, since then there has been a lot more discussion and today I would be somewhat more of an ß-advocate, so I actually regret having done such a good job formulating a policy that I am not quite comfortable with. Thanks for removing my contribution! Incidentally, at the video store I saw an English DVD with music by Johann II Strauß that used the ß on the cover. If it's good enough for a mass-marked DVD then it's good enough for WP! Arbor 07:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a proposal to make a Wikipedia naming convention about the "Thorn" (Þ} character, at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (thorn). Interested parties are invited to comment. Elonka 02:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like Æþöñéß, incidentally ;), and support the use of ß and similar Latin alphabet characters. I'm here on a different note, though: Whether currencies (euro, Japanese yen, ...) are proper names or not. This should be discussed and implemented into this page. My take is that they most clearly aren't. —Nightstallion (?) 08:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that in Alain de Cadenet, the source includes [[Category:1945 births|Cadenet, Alain de]].

I think that should be [[Category:1945 births|de Cadenet, Alain]].

A survey of the category, looking for similar names, suggests some people agree with me, but others do not. I have not yet found something to indicate which is preferred. Can someone point me to such, or should it perhaps be added here?

An idea I had was that names such as "de Cadenet" should be placed by the categorizer under both "C" and "D", and in the case of variants of "de", (d', di, du, etc) perhaps all those should be grouped in a special section before "D". Even leaving aside that that may not be theoretically (editorically) correct, it would involve some work, likely a lot . . . --SportWagon 16:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a few partial answers to my own question. It turns out "De Cadenet" would be classified under "D", but "de Cadenet" gets classified under "d", in a category on the last page, containing only the single entry. That seems wrong. The Categorizer is using an inappropriate collating sequence. Before verifying that, I tried adding both variants, and the entry under "C" disappeared, and I found none under "D" (obviously, now). But during that test I did not look for the "d" heading. And I don't want to muddle the history further right now just to verify what actually happens(ed).--SportWagon 17:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, no. I can say [[Category:1945 births|De Cadenet, Alain]] to force the alphabetization, but the entry title will be used in the Category listing, I believe. An example doing that is [[Category:1945 births|Du Pré, Jacqueline]] in Jacqueline du Pré--SportWagon 17:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people might be closer to where this information should be?--SportWagon 17:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complete answer for me is now in Wikipedia:Categorization#Category_sorting.--SportWagon 18:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue that librarians and archivists have clarified and refined since the invention of library catalogues. There is a good discussion at Authority control. The authoritative source on the standard form for proper names in English is at the US Library of Congress (which is also followed by the British Library and most other English language libraries. Returning to the question at hand, the LOC gives the Established Heading as "De Cadenet, Alain" and lists "Cadenet, Alain de" as an alternative (not the Established Heading). To be honest, I was surprised by the result, but it's a good idea to follow a conventional authority in lists and article titles. --SteveMcCluskey 14:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That answer doesn't surprise me. Well, it surprises me a little that "Cadenet, Alain de" is given as an alternative. (I.e. at all)--SportWagon 16:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A person where I work spells the surname as deRose. And since this person is an attorney, there are legal court papers file as deRose. Perhaps there should be indications that there are exception to the first letter is capitalized rule. --NYC 23:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there are other people who spell their names like that. -Pgan002 01:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider bell hooks and danah boyd. Both spell their names with no capital letters, yet the bell hooks article has survived years with no capital letters in her name, and editors refuse to allow even any mention in the (incorrectly titled) Danah Boyd article that her legal name has no capital letters (anytime this information is put in it is quickly reverted). I think there needs to be a policy specifically allowing idiosyncratic capitalization of at the very least personal names and pseudonyms. There was a stalled discussion of this on the WP:MOSCL talk page. —pfahlstrom 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A more focused poll on diacritics has been started, to address the very specific issue of whether or not diacritics should be used in the article titles of Polish monarchs. Interested editors are invited to participate, at: Talk:List of Polish monarchs#Poll: article names of Polish monarchs, diacritics accepted or not. --Elonka 17:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to change this article to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (proper names). Any comments/objections? jguk 12:31, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Makes sense. This isn't linked to from the Wikipedia:Naming conventions page either. Nor does it have a "naming conventions" template. I don't know the group of pages well enough to determine whether it's redundant or seperate or what, though. --Quiddity 21:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) is up for acceptance or amendment. Your voices would be welcome.

It makes suggestions on the treatment of alternate names in text which are more detailed than the section on Place names here (especially the case of multiple local names) but are not inconsistent with this page. A cross-link may be in order. Septentrionalis 18:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any consensus on what to do when the person goes by a lower case name? Does it matter if it is their legal name? I'm thinking specifically of an issue at Danah Boyd, but there are other examples. There is also a mention of this above, but no response. - cohesion 00:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see evidence of a consensus, though the bell hooks article has survived non-capitalized for years, which may be evidence. —pfahlstrom 22:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though one has to consider that regular contributors to an article are usually somewhat invested into the subject at hand, hence they are more likely to give preference to typesetting eccentricities, rather than subjecting them style guidelines. It's hardly ideal, but regrettably happens quite a lot. There appear to be no past requested moves at Talk:Bell hooks (and its archives), so while the article is often cited in similar discussions, it probably never had one with broad input of the community (through Wikipedia:Requested moves or an RfC) of its own.- Cyrus XIII 23:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There may be no past move requests, but this absence of move requests has been preceded by much discussion of the capitalization, as you can see. If it ain't broke, don't fix it—when an article about a notable subject does just fine for multiple years without having a prescriptive guideline applied, that's evidence that the guideline is not considered applicable. Now, I agree that it is a general rule in English that personal names are capitalized. But this guideline here does not even address the standard variations that allow for names such as L. Sprague de Camp—and if those variations are allowed, why should others not be? It's a question of markedness—names that have initial capitals are unmarked; they're what people expect. But sometimes the use of historically unmarked terms in place of marked terms can be controversial, such as with sexist language. If someone specifically marks their name by decapitalizing one or more letters that would traditionally be marked, re-unmarking the name could be seen as discriminatory.

Anyway, my point is that this guideline seems just to be saying to capitalize proper names, just as any student learns in elementary school. It does not seem to be saying to capitalize proper names even of those people who prefer that all or part of their names not be capitalized. —pfahlstrom 05:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support following what the subject of the article calls him/herself, per BLP. Kyaa the Catlord 22:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My own opinion is that it's not about how they refer to themselves, but about how they are best known in major reliable sources. --Elonka 23:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources has to do with factual information, not style decisions. Whether we capitalize someone's name as they choose is a style decision. We don't follow the New York Time's manual of style just because it's a reliable source. The two issues are not the same. - cohesion 00:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it could be interpreted to be a question of fact rather than style—if the capitalization is considered as essential as what letters are used to spell their name (and with the subjects in question, this is indeed the case), then that's a question of accuracy. In the case of danah boyd there are reliable sources for both capped and uncapped forms, and when there are reliable sources for both sides, should Wikipedia go with the one that outnumbers the other, or the one that is actually correct? —pfahlstrom 02:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should follow the conventions of English, in order to distinguish proper nouns in text and make it accurate and readable. Even if someone refers to himself or herself by lowercase names, those should be capitalized on Wikipedia. Unlike "danah boyd" and "bell hooks", which are lowercased by perhaps only hundreds of people, names like "Sprague de Camp" are not exceptions. They are whole classes of names that follow a rule used for centuries and accepted for all names by virtually all speakers of English. Such names come from a foreign language (in this case, French) in which "de" means "of" and, as in English titles, is not capitalized. We follow the convention of capitalization by capitalizing the translated names from languages that do not have capital letters, such as Mandarin. Unlike derogatory language, such as "fag", capitalizing a name is not meant to be offensive. Unlike sexist language, such as "house maid" or "air hostess", there is no underlying association with a particular group of people or stereotypes; on the contrary, the rule treats everyone equally. If a dozen people in the world prefer to be referred to by a lowercase name, this is just a whim in spite of society at large. There is no good reason for society to honor that whim. Distinguishing proper names makes text much less ambiguous and more effective. Conversely, any English speaker would be slightly confused at reading two words that appear to function as a proper name but are in lowercase. Names that function as common nouns, like "bell hooks", are even more confusing. I agree that the Manual of Style is not definitive about capitalizing proper names, but I think the above are compelling arguments for capitalizing names. -Pgan002 23:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to revive this discussion and make a proposal to change the MoS, because the "Danah Boyd" article remains an extremely problematic case, and it seems unlikely that the continuing controversy over it will be resolved with anything other than a change to MoS to accommodate people who are known by lower-case names.

Reasoning for the general case:

While not common, there are notable individuals who are known by names which are presented entirely in lower-case. Currently, MoS contradicts itself by advocating following "common usage" in one place, and imposing capitalization in another. Allowing lower-case names for articles about/referencing these individuals would resolve this contradiction. It would also maintain a principle of "least surprise" for readers familiar with the subjects of those articles, and as a by-product probably reduce the number of ongoing debates concerning the presentation of names in those articles. Additionally, allowing properly-referenced use of lower-case names would remove a potential avenue through which NPOV and BLP could be violated (by removing an implied view of what is and is not a "proper" name for a person, and a means by which content disrespectful of a living person might otherwise be permitted on Wikipedia).

Proposed change to policy:

This paragraph:

Personal names are the names given to people, but can be used as well for some animals (like race horses) and natural or man-made inanimate objects (like ships and geological formations). As proper nouns these names are always first-letter capitalized, and transliterated into English spelling but generally not Anglicized or translated between languages.

Should change to the following:

Personal names are the names given to people, but can be used as well for some animals (like race horses) and natural or man-made inanimate objects (like ships and geological formations). As proper nouns these names are usually first-letter capitalized, and transliterated into English spelling but generally not Anglicized or translated between languages. When a person is commonly known by a name which is not first-letter capitalized, and multiple reliable sources verify the non-capitalized usage, do not capitalize the name.

Possible objections and replies:

Objection: Some organizations (e.g., newspapers) have style guides which impose capitalization in the same way as the current MoS; these are reliable sources on Wikipedia, and their usage should be taken into account.

Reply: Their usage should be taken into account, but "reliable" should not be confused with "authoritative". Just as other sources are preferable to newspaper articles in other fields (e.g., if several peer-reviewed scientific journals contained information about a science-related topic which contradicted an article in the New York Times, the information in the peer-reviewed journals would be used by Wikipedia in preference to the newspaper article), great care should be taken in reviewing available sources.

Objection: Given the above, it's impossible to reliably determine which sources to follow.

Reply: It's hard in some cases, but not necessarily impossible. As in the example above of peer-reviewed journals conflicting with a newspaper article, it is often possible and, in fact, easy to render a judgment between sources (e.g., a secondary source is to be preferred to a tertiary source, and a source with authority in a specific field is to be preferred, within that field, to a source with only general authority). In cases where the correct usage is ambiguous or contentious, an RFC should be used to establish consensus for Wikipedia's usage.

So. Thoughts? Ubernostrum 10:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be appropriate for participants of the Boyd mediation to pursue any guideline changes that may apply to the scenario that is still being mediated on. - Cyrus XIII 13:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything inappropriate in my comments above; the endless nature of the debates (which seem to pop up pretty reliably at regular intervals), and now the mediation, over that article seem to point out pretty clearly that the MoS has problems with lower-case names, and changing the MoS is not in any way within the scope of that mediation, so why wouldn't it be appropriate to point out the problem with MoS and propose a remedy? Ubernostrum 14:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that pfahlstrom's example of bell hooks lends some precedent to this notion; in that case, the use of a lower-case name on Wikipedia flatly contradicts the MoS guideline, but appeals to reliable sources (no less than the Chicago Manual of Style, allegedly on hooks' insistence, recognized her name as lower-case) have so far carried the debate. Accommodating the occasional person who is verifiably known by a lower-case name (see also the lower-case title, but not lede -- a contradiction which could be resolved by this change -- on k.d. lang) in the MoS would seem to be a logical step from there. Ubernostrum 04:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wording of Ubernostrum's proposed revision to this guideline is a good start and agree with the underlying reasoning as he has expressed it, in addition to my previous arguments. I also reiterate that the current guideline is silent even on common lowercased name particles; this (as well as CamelCase names involving particles such as in LaKisha) should be addressed in any revision. I write this while recognizing that my opinion may carry little weight since I am currently unwilling to back it up by active participation in the process, due to my reasons expressed in my latest comments on the danah boyd talk page. Best wishes. —pfahlstrom 22:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After spending a while away from the Boyd article and thinking about this more in depth as a general problem, I think it reduces as follows.

The prescription that personal names "are always first-letter capitalized" creates an unresolvable tension between WP:MOSPN and other Wikipedia policies, leading to unnecessary arguments and edit wars:

• When a person is verifiably commonly known by a name which is, in whole or in part, not first-letter capitalized, a tension exists between WP:MOSPN and WP:COMMONNAME; MOSPN says to capitalize, while COMMONNAME says to use "the most common name".
• When reliable sources identify a person using a name which is, in whole or in part, not first-letter capitalized, a tension exists between WP:MOSPN and the paired policies WP:V and WP:RS; MOSPN says to capitalize, while V and RS say to follow verifiable, reliable sources.
• When a living person is known by a name which is, in whole or in part, not first-letter capitalized, a tension exists between WP:MOSPN and WP:BLP; MOSPN says to capitalize, while BLP says to "get the article right".

The result of this is that articles about such persons can and do easily devolve into perpetual edit wars (Danah Boyd would be the canonical example here); when there is tension or contradiction between policies, multiple conflicting arguments can be made, and the very real possibility is introduced that an article will never stabilize on one usage, instead being tugged back and forth according to which choice of policy backing is favored by a majority of editors at a given moment, or remain a hotbed of controversy as different editors argue positions which are, though contradictory, perfectly justifiable according to the particular policies to which they choose to give greater weight.

To prevent these problems, some form of resolution to this intra-policy tension is necessary. MOSPN seems the most appropriate candidate for change:

• Altering WP:V or WP:RS to, in effect, allow for non-verifiable information or the ignoring of reliable sources would fundamentally change the operation of Wikipedia and open up a very tangible slippery slope to less-verifiable or unsourced information, hence these policies should remain as they are.
• Altering WP:BLP to, in effect, allow "getting the article wrong" would, again, be a fundamental change, and would, again, open up a slippery slope, this time to articles disrespectful of living subjects; hence this policy should remain as it is.
• Altering WP:COMMONNAME would resolve the tension between that specific policy and MOSPN, but would not resolve the tension between MOSPN and other policies; hence this policy is not the most appropriate candidate for a change.

This leaves MOSPN as the best candidate to be altered: amending MOSPN to allow personal names to omit capitalization -- when such omission can be properly verified and sourced according to other Wikipedia policies -- would resolve all of the above tensions with the least impact on Wikipedia itself. The change to the policy's wording proposed above seems to me to be the minimal change necessary to effect this resolution, but I'm not in any way wedded to that particular wording.

Does anyone have strong arguments for/against this proposal? I'd like to get it to the stage of asking for actual votes one way or another, but getting arguments out in the open for discussion is a necessary first step. Ubernostrum 01:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that amending MOSPN seems to be the best alternative, for the reasons you give above. If there are numerous reliable sources that give someone's name in a non-standard style, and the person has declared for a particular style, BLP and COMMONNAME are pretty clear, leaving MOSPN as the one that needs to be changes. WP needs to reflect reality, not dictate it.--SarekOfVulcan 13:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for an amendment, as WP:BLP/WP:COMMONNAME and the Manual of Style deal with different things, which are content and formatting respectively. Hence no scope for any sort of "reality" distortion, especially when stylistic quirks are still mentioned/described in the respective articles (i.e. in the lead). - Cyrus XIII 19:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus, by that argument you really ought to be over at MOSTM arguing for "Ipod", "Itunes", "Ebay", etc.; given your logic, there's no reason for MOSTM to have the specific exception for their capitalization, since "Ipod" and "iPod" are the same thing and a note in the lede about the "stylistic quirks" would do just as well ;)

Or maybe -- just maybe -- there's some precedent for the idea that an absolute "always first-letter capitalize" guideline can be problematic? ;) Ubernostrum 05:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion about whether the page at Vossstrasse should be moved to Voßstraße. Interested editors are invited to participate in the discussion at Talk:Vossstrasse#Page name. --Elonka 00:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the existing guidelines cover capitalization of forms of the word "Bible", which generally is capitalized when referring to the Judeo-Christian scripute, or not? John Carter 18:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The capitalization of scriptures is already covered in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents, so it's safe to assume that any words derived from their titles are to be capitalized as well. Has there been any discussion on this elsewhere? - Cyrus XIII 19:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]