Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

the God of Israel or the god of Israel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

We've had a discussion at Talk:Books of Kings about whether the word god gets a capital G here. The full sentence as it stands is "Kings begins with the death of David, to whom Yahweh, the God of Israel, has promised an eternal dynasty, and the succession of his son Solomon." It seems pretty clear to me that 'god' here is a common noun, especially as the proper noun Yahweh is given, but I'm being told "Appending the phrase "of Israel" converts it into a proper noun that is always capitalized." and "Have you checked the MoS? "In a biblical context, God is capitalized only when it refers to the Judeo-Christian deity". When we add "of Israel", we are referring to a specific entity, which calls for capitalization." Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree it should be capitalized. I don't see any reason why two alternative names requiring capitalization occurring close together is a reason to drop capitalization of one: "The Prince of Wales, as Duke of Cornwall....". Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Their proximity makes no difference. The question is whether the word "god" in this context is a proper noun (i.e. "the God of Israel" as the name of the Christian god) or a common noun (i.e. "the god of Israel" as opposed to the god of Babylon or the gods of Olympus). -- Irn (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The MOS doesn't specify that we must capitalize it every time we refer to the god of Christianity but rather only then. If it were a title, I would argue for capitalization, but I see it as a modifier distinguishing Yahweh from any other god. The use of the definite article marks the difference for me, but I don't think it's very clear cut. For example, I would make the same argument for "Barack Obama, the president of the United States" versus "Barack Obama, President of the United States". A quick google search reveals that this book agrees with me: "If titles are modified they behave as ordinary nouns, which is usually marked by the fact that they are not capitalised. Thus we have the president of the United States, Ronald Reagan, but President Ronald Reagan." However, this introduces a little more ambiguity: "The definite article may be omitted before (appositive) nouns that indicate a unique role or task; i.e., when they imply that only one person holds the particular position. Note: The general tendency is toward not using the article. E.g., ... John F. Kennedy was (the) President of the United States in 1961." -- Irn (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Capitalized, as it is in this recent news article: "The major theme of the Bible's narrative is the loyalty of Judah, and especially its kings, to 'Yahweh', the God of Israel, and their rejection of idolatry.. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If "Yahweh, the God of Israel" is capitalised, then "Marduk, the God of Babylon," should also be capitalised. That just looks odd. A little further on in the same paragraph in the lead to Books of Kings it mentions "kings of Judah", which looks right - and Kings of Judah would look wrong.

It might be helpful to look at the reason why the phrase "God/god of Israel" is mentioned. It's there because the para is trying to make the point that Israel's god had a name, Yahweh, and Yahweh was credited in the Book of Kings with taking special care of Israel. It's important to refer to Yahweh and not just say "God" because the concept was different: the ancient Israelites didn't deny the existence of other gods like Marduk and Asherah, just their importance. Theren were many gods, they all had names, some of them were in charge of specific countries (Marduk had Babylon), and Yahweh was the god of ISrael. This is quyite different from the modern Jewish and Christian concept of a single divine being. It's also different from the Christian concpet of a God who has no name at all (not for Jews - Jews still credit God with a name, although it must never be pronounced or written in full). So, the god of Israel, not God of Israel. PiCo (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This shouldn't difficult to grasp. Just try to remember that Israel doesn't have a god; Israel has a God. Even when used as an adjective, it's still a proper noun, thus it's capitalized. Consider this illustration: "I know two guys named Jeff. Jeff Smith and Jeff Jones." Using PiCo's logic, he wouldn't capitalize the first instance of "Jeff" because it isn't directly applied to a specific person. I think we can all agree that would be incorrect. ► Belchfire-TALK 03:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

On that argument we have to capitalise the God of Babylon. "I know two gods named Yahweh and Marduk.Yahweh is the God of Israel and Marduk is the God of Babylon." PiCo (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Pico here. We shouldn't use different capitalization for different religions. If people are insisting we should they need to take this up at NPOVN. Israel has a god. Seriously, we can't discrimate among religions. JHunterJ, the Daily Mail isn't the way we determine our guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This argument only holds up if the name of the god of Babylon was actually "God" in English. But since the god of Babylon is actually named something else, "god" isn't being used as a proper noun in that case. Seriously, this isn't that hard to grok. There's no discrimination, only a quirk of language. ► Belchfire-TALK 11:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, not unless we favor one religion over another, which we shouldn't. "God" is capitalized because it's a title, like "President". The question is whether "Yahweh, the G/god of Israel" is a title. I would capitalize "Yahweh, God of Israel" but not "Yahweh, the god of Israel". The latter is simply an identification, no different from the Marduk example: "Marduk, God of Babylon" vs "Marduk, the god of Babylon".

Sometimes is feels like a title even with the 'the': his heart was turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel. Okay, I can accept that. (Though would we capitalize those words if it were Marduk?) Same with the national god, Yahweh the God of Israel. But we certainly shouldn't capitalize seven names for the god of Israel.

As for the original question, I think the context is "(Yahweh being the God of Israel)"? Yes, that is simply a descriptive phrase, and capitalizing it would be biased.

If the MOS really says we can only capitalize the Christian god, as s.o. said above, it's just wrong. We speak of capital-gee "God" in many religions – Hinduism, for example. Any place it's used as a title. — kwami (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's try a thought experiment. Would we say "There are two guys named 'Jeff' standing over there, but I'm referring to the 'jeff' on the left." Or would we say "I'm referring to the 'Jeff' on the left"? Obviously, the second quote is correct, because "Jeff" is a proper noun. If we reformulate the example, I think we can agree that we wouldn't write "I'm referring to the Man on the left". This is analogous to the "god of Babylon" example, wherein "god" is not a name or a title, but merely a noun.

In any event, the MoS is policy and it pretty clearly states that the word "god" is not capitalized in the phrase "god of Babylon". The MoS isn't wrong, some people just have trouble accepting and/or understanding it. Religious intolerance takes many forms, I'm afraid. ► Belchfire-TALK 12:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Your example is confused. "God" is a common noun. It is capitalized when used as a title, just as any noun would: "You're the Man!", or "Jeff, Man of the Year". That has nothing to do with whether there is one Jeff or two, or one man or two.

BTW, there is nothing in the MOS that says we should cap "god of Israel" or that we should not cap "God of Babylon". This has been clarified in previous discussions: The MOS says we capitalize titles such as "God", and this works for any religion. We only do this for the JC god in biblical contexts, because in biblical contexts only the JC god is ever given the title "God". (Anything else would be blasphemy.) In other contexts other gods may be given that title, in which case we capitalize them per the MOS. — kwami (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. The English word "god" is also the given name (in English) for the Abrahamic god, "God". The MoS doesn't discriminate, it merely recognizes this unique circumstance. Yes, it's culturally-driven; but no, it's not discriminatory.

Your reading of the MoS is, simply put, baloney. It says explicitly: God is capitalized only when it refers to the Judeo-Christian deity This is about as unambiguous as it can be. In an article about a book of the Christian Bible, "God of Israel" falls squarely under this directive. ► Belchfire-TALK 12:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You are as mistaken about that as you are mistaken in calling this a policy. Yes, it says "In a biblical context, God is capitalized only when it refers to the Judeo-Christian deity" but that's in a paragraph about proper nouns. In this case it is being used as a common noun. I guess this section needs clarification. Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

(God is always a common noun. It may be part of a name, or a title, but it's still a common noun.)

No, "god" is not a given name. It's a common noun. It is used as a title, and is capitalized per the MOS as a title. You might want to read proper noun for some background.

Yes, it is unambiguous, but you're still misreading it. "Do A only when X" doesn't mean "always do A". "Revert only after discussion" doesn't mean you must revert after discussion, only that you shouldn't revert without discussion. — kwami (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect again. "Proper nouns and titles referencing deities are capitalized: God, Allah, Freyja, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Messiah." The MoS is clearly stating that "God" is a proper noun. What's your next argument? ► Belchfire-TALK 13:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Read more carefully: "Proper nouns and titles". Freyja is a proper noun, like Yahweh or Jeff. God is a title, like Messiah or Lord or President. — kwami (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Not in English. In English, when referring to the Abrahamic god, "God" is a name. Oxford English Dictionary explains it fairly well: [1] Be sure to look at Oxford's examples.

In the passage I quoted from the MoS, the titles are preceded with "the", i.e. "the Messiah", "the Supreme Being". ► Belchfire-TALK 13:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Which examples? It says no such thing. — kwami (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Look again. "for God's sake!", "in God's name", "play God". There are several. ► Belchfire-TALK 13:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't understand. Of course those are capitalized, because they're using "God" as a title. We'd capitalize "Mother" in such cases. So "the god of Israel is God", just like "my mother is Mother". — kwami (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct. As I said, the section needs more work. We should write "a supreme being,", "the supreme being in X religion is ..." when we are using the phrase as a common noun. This is more and more looking like an NPOV issue. Odd, Belchfire writes "when referring to the Abrahamic god" rather than "the Abrahamic God" - isn't that an argument against the position he's taking? Dougweller (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami, you should wait for consensus and a change to WP:CAPS before embarking on so many edits [on so many articles]. Also whatever anyone at MOS CAPS does, this needs to be run past WP Judaism/Christianity/Religion before charging off on dozens of article edits.

@PiCo, grammatically Marduk, the God of Babylon probably should be capitalized if that is his title, otherwise the the use of God for the Islamic/Jewish/Bahai/Christian/Sikh god, or any other monotheistic god is a simple product of being the One, isn't it. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This should all be moved over to the article talk page, but there is a particular issue with the God of Israel, who is unnamable to observant Jews, so that God of Israel functions as his actual proper name much of the time. I agree with Belchfire and the OED that God in Christian contexts is also a name not a title. If not God, what is the name of the Christian God (considered as a unity)? Do tell. Also Yahweh is unquestionably the only God of Israel, whereas Babylon etc has many gods. Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

@Johnbod, following Kwamikagami's edits this now affects 50+ articles, not just the one at head of this section.

@no one in particular. I'm assuming everyone knows that Marduk was not the only god in Babylon, his consort Zarpanitum, etc. Not that that has direct bearing on Marduk, God of Babylon.

Also I'm personally not fussed either way, as long as broad consensus exists. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: You say: "...a simple product of being the One", which you capitalise. Do you seriously want to start capitalising the word One? What about Two, and Three, and all the others, won't they feel slighted? As for Marduk being One of many Gods in babylon, you seem to be implying that Yahweh was the Only god in Israel, which I'm sure you know is not True. (And we wouldn't be having this conversation if we were writing in some alphabet that didn't use Capitals - like, say, hebrew). PiCo (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

@PiCo, heyup. It was a slightly lateral comment; capitalisation can have various meanings and purposes. I was just noting that sometimes being unique is one of them, sometimes. I don't have strong opinions on this subject, just don't want to see a MOS issue robot out into article space without getting some buy in from those who don't regularly follow every itch and scratch in MOSland. Nothing further. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Here's a simple rule: if it's used as a title, capitalize it. If not, don't. As far as I can tell, God of Israel (Elah Yisrael, or El Elohe Yisrael) is often used as a title for God, similar to the way Al-Badīʿ and Al-Ġafūr are used as Names of God in Islam. When used as such, it should be capitalized. If it is not being used as a title (i.e. Israel's god) it should not be capitalized. If God of Babylon is used unambiguously as a title for Marduk, then it would also be capitalized, but as far as I can tell, this is not the case. That said, I can think of few cases where it would be appropriate to use the title God of Israel or the clarifying term god of Israel on Wikipedia. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion this instance should be capitalized, as it does not come to exclude other gods, but to refer to God, who "happens to be" the God of Israel. Debresser (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The context suggests otherwise:

Kings begins with the death of David, to whom Yahweh, the god of Israel, has promised an eternal dynasty, and the succession of his son Solomon. Solomon is praised for his wisdom and wealth, but he offends Yahweh by allowing other gods to be worshiped in Jerusalem.

God brings the Babylonians, who followed Marduk, the god of Babylon; Yahweh deserts his people, Jerusalem is razed ...

the destruction of the kingdom and the Temple is due to the failure of the people, but more especially the kings, to worship Yahweh alone (Yahweh being the god of Israel).

In each case, "the god of" is purely descriptive, identifying who this Yahweh is. In that it's no different from "the king of X" in,

The final verses record how Jehoiachin, the last king, is set free and given honour by the king of Babylon)

In fact, Belchfire had capitalized the God of Babylon along with the God of Israel, and I think most of us agree that that should not be capitalized. But since they are parallel, the same rule should apply to both. — kwami (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

@kwani, your edits across such a large number of articles have been incredibly unhelpful. Please wait until this discussion is resolved. @ In ictu oculi, we certainly don't need the imprimatur of any of the projects, but it would be good to keep all the discussion here, and post a note at the relevant projects. StAnselm (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That's an old AWB script from May 2011. At the time there had been a similar discussion and the consensus that, per the MOS, we should not capitalize "god", even in the phrase "god of Israel", unless it is actually used as a title (or a quotation). At that time I scanned all of WP with no complaints. It was this discussion here that reminded me I haven't used it for a while, so I did another scan.

BTW, Book of Kings has been stable with lower-case god of Israel since the phrase was added a year and a half ago. — kwami (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Which means absolutely nothing at all. There is no such thing as a "stable article" on Wikipedia. It's a fictional construct. ► Belchfire-TALK 21:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

At Mesha Stele we had "Mesha tells how Kemosh, the God of Moab," which I think is obviously wrong, Kwami changed it to "the god of Moab" and he's been reverted. It's a common noun there just as it's a common noun in "the god of Israel". I still see this as a pov issue and although I raised it here and could be seen as canvassing, I think perhaps it belongs at NPOVN. Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a canvassing issue (if I understand you correctly), but there's an obvious issue with using an automated tool to force a change across the entire encyclopedia while this discussion is still ongoing without having reached any consensus. ► Belchfire-TALK 21:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted him, because the discussion is still going on here. And there is a recurrent suggestion that we should have "God of Babylon", "God of Moab", etc. Indeed, at Books of Kings, where this all started User:PiCo capitalized "God of Babylon". I've been busy reverting many of kwami's changes - and although I don't have a strong opinion about "God of Moab", I thought it best to revert until there is a consensus here. StAnselm (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted a number as well, particularly those that showed up on my watchlist, but there may be dozens more. Kwami, most WP:RS that I can find capitalize "God of Israel", often considering it a synonym with God. Please wait to get consensus before instituting these changes. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

kwami, would you be able to provide a link to the previous discussion, please? StAnselm (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

User:PiCo was not being entirely serious when he force-fed the phrase Marduk, God of Babylon, down the Book of Kings's throat. It was meant to show the absurdity of insisting that god should be God in reference to Judeo-Christian deities, but not with reference to others. It's also worth noting the reason for adding the "god/God of Israel" phrase after Yahweh about a year ago: it was because there was a fear that the uninformed reader might wonder who on earth this Yahweh person was. PiCo (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Umm, in that case it sounds like disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. StAnselm (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

So it's cold porridge for Pico again tonight? PiCo (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Marduk will punish you. StAnselm (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

On the Book of Kings talk page Belchfire makes an interesting reference to the article Capitonym, according to which (he says): 1. "The word "god" is capitalized to "God" when referring to the single deity of monotheistic religions such as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam." and 2. "The word for God is capitalized when referring to the monotheistic Supreme Being, but lower cased when referring to the gods of ancient mythology."

Rule 1 doesn't apply to Yahweh in Iron Age Israel and Judah, as those kingdoms weren't monotheistic and had more than one deity. (The prophets were forever trying to convince them that they were wrong, but apart from some limited success with kings Hezekiah and Josiah they didn't have much success). Rule 2 doesn't apply for much the same reason, but more so - even the prophets didn't think that Yahweh was a Supreme Being, just that he was the most important of all the gods.

So on balance, according to this, articles which have a primarily historical focus, as the Book of Kings article does, should refer to Yahweh as the god of Israel (meaning the god who was the "strength" of Israel, as Moab, Edom and other states had their own national gods). I do however think that it's legitimate to use a capital in a theological context, so that when the prophets are being quoted or referenced as talking about Yahweh the God of Israel, then a capital is needed. A good guideline might be to simply copy whatever the source is saying at any particular point. ("Source", of course, means academic studies mostly, and sometimes bibles when we're quoting passages). PiCo (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The article on capitonyms is not the Wikipedia Manual of Style and has no real bearing here. I referenced it purely to debunk Kwami's spurious argument concerning the definition of a proper noun. ► Belchfire-TALK 23:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Since this discussion is about possible amendment of the MoS, the article is relevant, and I thank you for bringing it to our attention. PiCo (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The Judaism, Christianity and Bible projects have all been informed. StAnselm (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree that, in this particular instance, there is just cause for the "G" in "God of Israel" to be capitalized. I notice that one editor above made the rhetorical comment that the G could only be capitalized in the sense of the Judeo-Christian god. Honestly, I don't know how to respond to that other than to say that if there are any other religions out there which use the word "God" as a form of name for their particular god, that the "G" could probably be capitalized there as well. I myself don't know anything about that one way or another, though. In Judaism and Christianity, "God" is used as one of the names by which that particular deity is named. On that basis, in this context, the word is used as a proper name, and it is appropriate to capitalize them, just as it is appropriate to capitalize the "Francis" in Francis of Assisi, even though from what I've read in his particular case it was just a nickname meaning something like "Frenchie". If any word, including nicknames like in that case, and, more or less, this case, is used as a proper name, it is appropriate to capitalize it. If Marduk or other gods are indicated in independent reliable sources as being regularly referred to by their followers by the stand-alone nickname "God" as well, I would agree to capitalize in that case as well, or any other similar case. John Carter (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Upper case, upper case, for sure, for sure. History2007 (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

We still need something that can used as a guideline. Going back to the Capitonym article, how about using their definition:

• 1. "The word "god" is capitalized to "God" when referring to the single deity of monotheistic religions such as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam."

and

• 2. "The word for God is capitalized when referring to the monotheistic Supreme Being, but lower cased when referring to the gods of ancient mythology."

I think the first half of the second point ("The word for God is capitalized when referring to the monotheistic Supreme Being") is just repeating the first point and can be dropped, while the second half gives guidance on when to use a small /g/. Does this sound like a useful guideline? PiCo (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I heard that Marduk has already contacted you about it... But seriously, this is a straightforward issue, as stated upfront at the top: When we add "of Israel", we are referring to a specific entity, which calls for capitalization. Now, which other entities would you like to contact you? History2007 (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I might favor phrasing something like "If the term "God" (or some other term generally translated as such) is regularly used by a given religious group as a form of alternate name or nickname for a single individual divinity, then, in that case, the term "god" can be capitalized in wikipedia when it is being used in the article as an alternate-name or nickname for the specific divinity in question." John Carter (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(That's what we have now. — kwami (talk))

@History2007: That's not how capitalization works in English. "The president of the United States" also refers to a specific entity, but it is not cap'd unless used as a title. Same with "the cat sitting in my front yard", which is a specific entity as well, but we would never capitalize it as *the Cat Sitting in My Front Yard. There is a tendency to capitalize "God" even when not used as a title when referring to the Christian god, because the author expects a largely Christian audience who might be offended at the suggestion that theirs might not be the only god. Similarly, people often capitalize "He, Him, His". But we don't, because we address a more universal audience, or at least we hope to.

Now, very often "God of Israel" is a title, like "Host of Hosts", and should thus be capitalized. And it's not always easy to determine how the phrase is being used. But clearly in the parenthetical clarification "(Yahweh being the god of Israel)", god is not being used as part of a title.

If we want to start capitalizing "God" when it refers to the god of a monotheistic religion, even when not being used as a title, then that is a discussion on amending rather than applying the MOS, and I think we'd need a new discussion section. And I'm not sure how we would apply it: Is Mawu the Vodun "God" with a capital gee? Vodun is, after all, a monotheistic religion, but we almost never capitalize in the case of Vodun except whet "God" is a title or part of a title. Is Hinduism a monotheistic religion? Many Hindus will tell you so, but not all of them. How do we decide which Hindus are relevant? Do we need to have a debate over whether each religion is monotheistic before we can properly format an article? Because for many religions our sources are going to contradict each other on this point. Do we use lower-case "god" for early Judaism, because early Judaism was not monotheistic, but henotheistic? At which point in history does the Hebrew god become the Hebrew God? — kwami (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a historical argument about the development of monotheism is at all helpful. Certainly, the Hebrew Bible is written from a monotheistic perspective. If the prophets call the people (back?) to monotheism, then at least some people are thinking there is only one God/god. So rule 1 in the Capitonym article still applies. Arguments like PiCo's "even the prophets didn't think that Yahweh was a Supreme Being" shouldn't really be used here - this is a disputed construction that doesn't have much relevance for our style guidelines. StAnselm (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In response to Kwami, no, the proposed phrasing I suggested is not what we have now. This is what we have now:

"Proper nouns and titles referencing deities are capitalized: God, Allah, Freyja, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Messiah. The same is true when referring to important religious figures, such as Muhammad, by terms such as the Prophet. Common nouns not used as titles should not be capitalized: the Norse gods, personal god. In a biblical context, God is capitalized only when it refers to the Judeo-Christian deity, and prophet is generally not capitalized."

I added several qualifiers. One, I did not rule out the possibility that other deities might not also be called "God," although I did acknowledge that I wasn't aware of any. Secondly, I indicated that the term would have to be used in the article as a form of proper name, a point which is missing in the current construction. The fact that Kwami says there is a tendency to capitalize God is another matter entirely, and, honestly, I believe my alternate phrasing is useful in that sense as well. I indicated (1) the term should be regularly used as a form of alternate name for a single god (not necessarily the Abrahamic one) by his/her/its followers, and that the term would have to be used in the article itself as a form of proper name for the entity in question. The fact that a bit of an off-topic point is introduced in the last paragraph of that last post above by Kwami as well is also not particuarly relevant here. Policies and guidelines are not in general intended to be able to address every situation which might arise, which seems to rather be the point of that paragraph. I can and do think that my proposed phrasing is a bit more direct regarding the specific instances in which capitalization would be appropriate than the current phrasing, and I would appreciate it if individuals actually responded to it directly rather than with a dismissive "that's what we have now," because it certainly is not what we have now. John Carter (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you see explanation as being "dismissive", but that implies that you find any disagreement to be unacceptable, doesn't it? The wording is of course not what we have now, but the meaning is, more or less. Perhaps your wording would be more understandable (one editor here seems to have a hard time parsing the word "only"), but it introduces the complication that we would need to search the lit to see whether "god" or "God" is more common. And if followers of a god speak some language other than English, how do we address that? Esp. a language written in a script w/o caps? I'm thinking of the debate over whether "hangul" should be capitalized based on how it's used in Korean, even though Korean does not have caps. I think this could get to be a mess. Better IMO to stick to general English capitalization rules, either what we have or adding the monotheistic exception proposed above. — kwami (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I wonder how much of a dent in the global economy these pointless discussions about cats and gods make... What a way to spend a life... Good bye. History2007 (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

And I just wasted half an hour reading this entire section. What does that say about me? For what it's worth, as an uninvolved observer, I think Pico's proposal above makes the most sense: "The word 'god' is capitalized to 'God' when referring to the single deity of monotheistic religions such as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam." and "The word for God is capitalized when referring to the monotheistic Supreme Being, but lower cased when referring to the gods of ancient mythology." FurrySings (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

God (cont.)

Kwami has apparently taken the lull in this conversation as license to start implementing these changes, using AWB. The changes have all been reverted now, by various editors (including me), but it would be nice if some consensus could be achieved here. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

There's been no consensus to change the status quo, which is that we capitalize God as a title, not god as a common noun. So, Yahweh is God of Gods, Host of Hosts, God of Israel, the Lord God, but "Yahweh" is one of the names of the god of the Israelites. The latter is not a title, and so does not get capitalized. If we were to change Yahweh, God of Israel to Shango, God of Thunder, and it would still be capitalized, then fine; otherwise we're privileging one religion over others, which violates the basic WP policy of neutrality. Yes, NPOV is *policy*, and so overrides guidelines.

If we're going to capitalize 'god' every time it refers to Jehovah, then we have to capitalize when speaking of the Canaanite deities too, and the deities of every other religion.

Also, Jay, we do not capitalize pronouns outside of titles, and when we do capitalize titles, we cap all nouns, not just 'God'. — kwami (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Kwami, I asked you above for link to the discussion that established consensus, but to far you have failed to provide it. StAnselm (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That was years ago; it'll take a while to find it. — kwami (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Still waiting... StAnselm (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The MOS is quite clear; "God is capitalized only when it refers to the Judeo-Christian deity". The MOS itself "privileges one religion over others", no doubt because English itself does the same. Thus, there's a two-fold issue with your edits: a) English-language conventions may not meet every editor's view of what's "fair", but it's not up to Wikipedia to fix English, and b) you shouldn't try to edit-war in controversial changes to the MOS, or indeed to broad swathes of articles, absent a consensus for those changes. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite clear, but you have it backwards. You also left out "in a biblical context". This is the case because in a biblical context, "God" is only used as a title for Jehovah, and so of course would only be capitalized when referring to Jehovah. At least I'm not aware of any passage that refers to some other god as God. But that's irrelevant to this discussion, because no-one is arguing that we should call other biblical gods "God". I also fail to see where the MOS privileges one religion over others. Could you point it out? Nowhere does it single out one religion, apart from the biblical-context comment. Even if it did, it would violate NPOV, and policy trumps guideline. — kwami (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

(e-c) For the most part, I agree with Kwami that we capitalize God when it is used as a title or alternate name, but not when it is used as a form of regular noun. So, the question would seem to be determining in which way the word "god" is used in a given article. I also have to agree with Jayjg about the "fairness" issue, as, in this language, barring some little known or not widely discussed religions, it does seem that the term "god" is used as a name more or less exclusively by the Judeo-Christian-Islamic "Abrahamic" tradition. I add the caveat above because I know that there are a lot of indigenous religions out there which we have little if any content about yet, and it might be possible that some of them also use the noun "god" as some sort of honorific title/name. I don't know. So, at this point, I would have to say that I see no particular consensus for widespread changes based on this discussion, although I can and do see that, perhaps, it might not be unreasonable for someone to perhaps change the phrasing of an article, if the content would seemingly deal with deities beyond the single, all-powerful, all-etc., creator god-type called "God", it might make sense to change the phrasing in such a way as to use the lower-case "g". But I would very much believe that any such changes, on a broad level, be discussed first, probably on the relevant article talk pages, although I suppose a link to multiple proposed changes on a given WikiProject talk page, maybe as an RfC, might also work. John Carter (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"God" is capitalized for any religion. Certainly for Islam (some argue that Allah is defined differently than Jehovah, and so is not the same deity), but also in Hinduism, Sikhism, and many others. The MOS explicitly supports this, and AFAIK no-one disagrees, so there's no problem. — kwami (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Kwami, when the MOS says "God is capitalized only when it refers to the Judeo-Christian deity", it is "privileging" the "Judeo-Christian deity"; again, no doubt, because that's what the English language itself does. As for NPOV "trumping" the MOS, you seem to have misconstrued the meaning of NPOV here; NPOV means that Wikipedia attempts to follow the lead of the preponderance of reliable sources. In any event, if you think that the MOS violates NPOV, you're still going to have to get consensus that that is the case. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't say that! How can you repeatedly misread it like that?

We capitalize "God" for any religion. That is established practice on WP. But we only capitalize the god called "God" by the religion, which in the JC case means Jehovah. No-one disputes this, so I don't understand why you keep arguing it. In the biblical context, "God" means Jehovah. In other contexts, "God" may mean a different deity, or one might argue that the Supreme Creator of all religions is the same. Either way, it's a title, and such usage is supported by the MOS. But what does that have to do with the issue here?

BTW, we used to have "Christian god" as an example of when not to capitalize, but it got lost in an edit war over someone trying to add "Almighty God" in Wikipedia's voice. — kwami (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, everyone keeps saying the MOS is simple, yet we keep arguing over what it says. Here's the relevant bit:

titles referencing deities are capitalized: God, Allah, the Lord, ... Common nouns not used as titles should not be capitalized: the Norse gods, personal god. In a biblical context, God is capitalized only when it refers to the Judeo-Christian deity ...

So,

(1) "God" is capitalized when used as a title. No mention of any particular religion.

(2) "God" is not capitalized when not used as a title. No mention of any particular religion.

(3) In biblical contexts, "God" is only capitalized as a title for Jehovah.

I suspect (3) would hold for any religion, but it's not likely to be an issue for others. That is, in an article on Sikhism, when we say "God", we mean the Sikh conception of God, not Jehovah. Similarly, "God" in Islam means Allah, and "God" in Hinduism means Brahma. This would appear to be common sense, and I've never seen anyone argue about it. One of the earlier counter-examples to (3) was where Jehovah made Moses "like a god"; in that case we don't capitalize, though that's an obvious case of (2).

Now, the question is whether "God of Israel" should be capitalized. The MOS addresses this: If it falls under (1), it's capitalized. (This is compatible with (3), because the "God of Israel" is Jehovah.) If it falls under (2), it is not capitalized. It's not always easy to tell whether it's a title in a particular case, so there is going to be difficulty in applying this. But certainly if we say "Chemosh is the god of the Moabites, and Yahweh the god of the Israelites", we are not using "god" as a title, and so would not capitalize. Otherwise we would need to say "Chemosh is the God of Moab, and Yahweh is the God of Israel", which would violate (3). On the other hand, "his name means El the God of Israel" certainly strikes me as a title. In some cases "the God of Israel" is being used as a substitute for Jehovah – that is, as a proper name – and in others it's merely a descriptor identifying who Jehovah is. I think we need to ask ourselves, why is the phrase being used? What would we replace it with if it weren't? Would that thing be capitalized? — kwami (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Actual usage in English is doubtless the reason why Kwamikagami has had no success in persuading other Wikipedia editors. The English of Wikipedia should be normal English, not some peculiar dialect of English, with rules of its own. Like it or not, "God of Israel" is normal English. Esoglou (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you bother to read what I wrote?

Of course it's normal English. It's also commonly a title. And it's normal English to capitalize "Him", but we don't do that on WP.

It's not always a title, however, and as such is not always capitalized in "normal English". For example,

The original god of Israel was El.

It occurs as a title of the god of the patriarchs, and it appears in the older poetic compositions for the god of Israel (see also Num. 24:4)

Yahweh, a tribal god of the highlands, emerged as the national god of Israel (1 Kings 20:23).

In the patriarchal narratives, the god of Shechem, 'el, is called 'ělōhê yiśrā'ēl, "the god of Israel", and is presumed to be Yahweh.

Indeed, Yahweh was "the god of Israel" (Judg. 5:3)

—Smith, 2002, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel

But it was Yahweh, of course, who would emerge as the national god of Israel and Judah

—Miller & Hayes, 1986, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah

For some Israelites, Yahweh was the chief god of Israel, but many, including kings of Israel and Judah, worshiped other gods as well. It was among the Babylonian exiles in the sixth century B.C.E. that Yahweh—the God of Israel—came to be seen as the only God.

—Spielvogel, 2011, Western Civilization

All capitalize "God of Israel" as a title, not otherwise. This is what the MOS currently prescribes. This is the existing consensus. It's up to you to build a new consensus to change this, and to promote one deity over another in Wikipedia's voice. —kwami (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm still with Kwami. Although his examples aren't guidance for us, they are useful. Can I ask for some comments? In "For some Israelites, Yahweh was the chief god of Israel" are some saying if that was in Wikipedia and not a quote, it should be "Yahweh was the chief God of Israel"? Or that "Yahweh was the chief god of Israel" should be "Yahweh was the chief God of Israel"? Comments on these and other examples might help us move forward. Dougweller (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I would think that in this context the "g" probably should not be capitalized, as the word "god" is being used in a general sense, and as it is basically nonsensical to say that Yahweh is the "chief God" when he is, basically because I don't want to have to deal with the issue of henotheism here, the "only God" in the religious system of that people.

There is another question, reqarding whether the "G" should be capitazlied when dealing with the creator god in articles relating to the "philosophy of religion". In those instances, I tend to think that it would make sense to allow the capitalization when the subject is dealing with the philosophical concept of a single, all-powerful, all-knowing, etc., creator god, but only in that context. "Creator god" in and of itself is a rather different concept, as not all creator gods are all-powerful, and in that more generalized sense I think the lower-case g would probably be the best option. John Carter (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense to me. I think it's covered by points (1) vs (2): in a generic sense, we can speak of many creator gods; but we can also have God the Creator or even the Creator God the way we have the God of Fire or the Fire God. In any particular instance we find it may be difficult to say what the author intended, but when we're putting it in Wikipedia's own voice, we should have some idea of what we mean!

BTW, for the edits I've done over the past couple years, there are cases which are clearly generic, which I've changed to l.c.; others clearly titles, which I've left alone; and others which were difficult to determine. Sometimes I'd change one only to revert myself, or to be reverted and to see that I was wrong. I'm not trying to eliminate the title "God" from WP in any religion, only trying to ensure that we do not place the faith of some of our readers above that of others. The MOS already covers this pretty well, if we can agree to follow its guidance. — kwami (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, this edit of yours was vandalism, and I marked it as such. You have been warned - any further edits along these lines using AWB will have you reported for abuse of tools. StAnselm (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You're being ridiculous. "God of Adam and Eve" is not one of the names of God.

I see that neither of us noticed that it was ungrammatical. Does that make you a vandal?

BTW, falsely accusing people of vandalism is an abuse of tools, and you can lose them for doing that. I had assumed good faith, that it was an automated summary; I still assume good faith, and suspect that you simply don't know what WP:vandalism is. — kwami (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller, I think the questions is somewhat moot. I don't think that phrase could be in Wikipedia except in a quote. It is controversial, and it's one scholar's opinion. This brings us back to the question of monotheism and henotheism. It seems strange that we should be debating the theological point here, but the guidelines say "God is capitalized only when it refers to the Judeo-Christian deity", and your question raises the point about whether "god" in the Hebrew Bible always refers to a single monotheistic deity. Well, I think with the phrase "god of Israel" it always does, and so "god" should be capitalised. StAnselm (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

StAnselm misses the grammatical point of Kwami's examples of god of Israel in scholarly usage. I think we would all agree that any time "god" is preceded by the indefinite article a, it isn't capitalized, because by definition it's a common noun. I may have overlooked one in this lengthy discussion, but it seems to me that in every example that would justify a capital G, the definite article the could be dropped, so that "God of Israel" functions as a name. But in the examples Kwami lists, the the either could not be omitted, because it's referring to the concept "god, deity," or there is an intervening modifier ("the chief god" or "the national god of Israel") where "god of Israel" is not a proper noun. The last example even demonstrates the linguistic process of how "the god" is transformed to "God" as a name. In the phrase that Yahweh—the God of Israel—came to be , the the could be dropped in the appositive "the God of Israel" because it's a formal naming or what in the religions of classical antiquity we would call a "cult title". I know it isn't so simple, but the necessity of the definite article is one test or indication. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In other words, we shouldn't be considering theological questions in the first place, but whether a common noun (thus "god of Israel") or proper noun ("God of Israel") is meant in context. There are instances where this will be ambiguous. In these cases, editors should probably look to the capitalization of their sources, who will presumably know whether they intended the name (proper noun, G) or concept (common noun, g). Cynwolfe (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, going back to the original dispute in the Books of Kings article, it looks to me like a proper noun: Kings begins with the death of David, to whom Yahweh, the god of Israel, has promised an eternal dynasty. In any case, the sentence is talking about the "Judeo-Christian deity", and so requires a capital according to our current MOS guidelines. I still find it hard to see why people are disputing that. StAnselm (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Because that's not what the MOS says. See the following comments by Cynwolfe and John Carter for clarification. — kwami (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If you do a Google books search for the phrase "the God of Israel", you'll find the vast majority of sources capitalize the term: on the first ten pages of results, I was only able to find two sources that didn't capitalize. It appears that capitalizing "God" in this context is standard English. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

But this isn't a discussion about "most common." It isn't a discussion about an article title, or what to call the deity who is the sole focus of the religion of Israel. It's clear that it should be capitalized as "God" when it's the name of a specific deity. The question, rather, is how editors know when "God" is being used as a proper name, and when "god" is used as a common noun for the concept. In the original controversy that StAnselm has just restated, the problem is that it's ambiguous. The appositive could be read as a mere explanation of who Yahweh is for those who don't know: he is the (supreme and only) deity of Israel. If capitalizing I might just drop the the—Yahweh, God of Israel—so it appears as an alternate name, in keeping with the formulaic redundancy of naming that is characteristic of religious language. Or is the appositive needed at all? If it's an explanation of who Yahweh is, it's lowercase: he's a god, and in particular the god of Israel. If it's the name, it's capitalized. This has to be decided by the meaning of the sentence. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the specific term "God of Israel" is also frequently used as a "name" of Jehovah, in more or less the same sense as Duke of Buckingham or similar titles are used as alternative names, and that it makes sense to capitalize it in that sense, if it is being used as a formm of alternative name.

Beyond that, ultimately, I can and do see the objections to capitalizing the word "god" in a lot of cases. Some of the biggest problems seems to me to be that (1) for the most part, those of us who edit are English-speakers, and the English speaking world is historically strongly inclined to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god, so that we as editors capitalize the word a lot on general principles, and (2) as more or less a corollary to the above, the theological/philosophical works most of us know best which relate to the topic are also from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic sense. I know my personal understanding of many smaller or less globally-prominent faiths and their theologies is weak, although I have in the past few years tried to change that. I regret to say that, unfortunately, I haven't found that much by way of sources to provide a lot of information. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, what we need to do here is get some individuals who can consult the leading reference works on the relevant topics, religion, philosophy, and theology, and see if any of them provide any sort of clear and less ambiguous basis for the distinction between capital G and lower-case g in this context. Anyone think it would be a good idea to specifically ask individuals associated with the directly-relevant WikiProjects for those topics to review the literature and see if it proves at all helpful? John Carter (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Ask Noetica. He usually has something intelligent to say on matters of style.

We could also test if "G/god of Israel" could be replaced with "deity of Israel". If so, that would suggest it's being used as a simple common noun. — kwami (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

Having dropped into this discussion late, I decided to look more closely at the language of the guideline: In a biblical context, God is capitalized only when it refers to the Judeo-Christian deity, and prophet is generally not capitalized. I don't find "In a biblical context" helpful, as I don't know what it means, and it seems to me that "God" is capitalized any time it's used as the name of the Judaeo-Christian deity (that is, as a proper noun), regardless of whether the context is Bible study, cuisine, or sports. I wonder whether we might be able to clarify that the distinction in capitalization is the usual one between proper and common noun? To start the discussion, I propose:

• When used as a proper noun in naming the Judaeo-Christian deity, God is capitalized.

It isn't the "biblical context" that determines whether god is capitalized; it's whether it's a proper or common noun. I suppose if further clarification is desired, one could add:

• If used as a common noun or synonym for "deity," god is lowercase.

Some instances may still remain ambiguous as to which is intended, as indicated above, but at least the guideline will frame the nature of the question correctly: is it a proper or common noun? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, though I think we can remove the biblical comment, which just seems to confuse people.

When used as a proper noun for any deity, "God" is capitalized, so there's no reason to single out JC here. The second line is redundant, and could be handled with an example. The comment about the biblical context is so that we don't use "God" for any god besides Jehovah. However, since the Bible refers only to Jehovah as "God", I doubt there's any need for that. The basic convention of "God" as a title and "god" as a common noun should be sufficient. — kwami (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying, and I especially find in a biblical context uninstructive. If I'm writing about Milton, it's "In Paradise Lost, God tells Adam" etc. If I'm writing a history article, it's "was attributed to a belief in God." I wouldn't consider either of those a "biblical" context. So excuse my genuine ignorance, but is there another god named God? In invocations, you might have translated titles like "Sator, God of Sowing," though that would most likely occur in a quotation. My thinking was that if the entry already specifies the difference between common and proper adequately (I'm not sure of that), this simply clarifies the Judaeo-Christian practice—which might seem odd or presumptuous to those unfamiliar with it. The entry currently reads as if it privileges the Judaeo-Christian entity, because of the "only". Cynwolfe (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Capitalization of world rankings in tennis player pages

hi there - I was wondering if anyone knew the official wiki regulations for 'World No.' for world rankings on tennis player pages/whether there is a linked guideline for this specific capitalization? I had a quick browse through en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters and thought, say, World No. 1 or World No. 43 would count as a title? 'World No.' has always seemed to be the style most widely used, and I certainly think it looks better than 'world no.' etc - see this conversation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fyunck%28click%29#Capitalization_of_world_rankings thanks. Asmazif (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2013 (GMT)

There are guides with things like "Abbreviate and capitalize the word number when followed by a numeral: No. 1." And quite a few books do that, as in "world No. 1 tennis player", with lowercase "world". I think WP style would be to not abbreviate, and just say "world number 1 tennis player". But the tennis folks may disagree. Dicklyon (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This issue is already covered by MOS:NUMBERSIGN and standard capitalization of non-proper nouns. According to MOS:NUMBERSIGN, Wikipedia prefers the "No. 1" usage over "number 1". And, as Dicklyon indicated above but did not explain, "world" should not be capitalized because it is not a proper noun. If the ranking refers to that of a specific organization, for example, the World Tennis Association (WTA), then the organization's name would be properly capitalized as in "WTA No. 1". Hope that helps. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It says use the word "number", or the abbreviation "No.". It doesn't say to choose one of the other, so I guess we were both wrong about that. Dicklyon (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Generic words for institutions

Given the confusion in Navy or navy above and the frequency of errors of capitalization of generic words for institutions in articles, is there a need for more specific direction in the Institutions section of this guideline? I think it needs to be more clear. SchreiberBike (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I propose the following changes and additions to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Institutions (deletions are struck out and additions are underlined).

• Full names of institutions (George Brown College) are proper nouns and require capitals.
• Generic words for institutions (university, collegesociety, hospital, high schoolnavy) do not take capitals even when referring to a specific institution:

Thanks, SchreiberBike (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Your proposal is in keeping with standard English usage. It is a shame that it needs to be said, but it needs to be said. I like and support it. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Just because you keep saying something doesn't make it true. It's hardly "standard English usage" to not capitalize the armed forces. If the proposed changes are agreed upon, that's fine, but stop acting like your position is the only possible correct one. People have already shown the AP and many other style guides don't agree with you. Just because Chicago agrees doesn't make it "standard English usage" or "a shame that it has to be said". Kchinger (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me what I may and may not say. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The decision between lowercase and uppercase (in the context under discussion here) turns on whether a particular noun is a common noun or a proper noun, not on whether a particular noun is a "full name" or a "generic word".

SchreiberBike, please show us one or more authoritative sources on which you base your proposal, especially with regard to the words "even when referring to a specific institution".

Will someone please explain how, when, and why this discussion and similar ones have begun to use the expression "generic word" instead of "common noun"?

No, the proposal above – especially with the words "even when referring to a specific institution" – does not represent "standard English usage", not even after Paul attached that label to it.

Paul and a few others have undertaken to impose their minority personal preference on the rest of us, and they deride some of our work as "confusion" and "errors".

It's OK for them to follow their own minority alternative style in their own private work, but it's not OK for a small group of crusaders to shove their alternative style down the throats of the remainder of us and to create a rule (in the Wikipedia MoS) which they could then enforce against the world.

Please keep in mind that even the major style books sometimes use decision rules which do not conform to the established grammar rules.  [For example, recall the squirelly argument which the NYT style book uses by which to seek to justify the avoidance or nonuse of the serial (or Oxford or Princeton) comma.]

While you ponder my words, please consider my background:   I've worked in journalism, publishing, and elsewhere in mass communication since 1953.  This year is my 60th anniversary as a wordsmith.  When I speak or write on questions such as the ones here, I do so not as a newcomer or an apprentice but rather as someone with 60 years of experience and expertise.  Even now I continue to work in the professional arena as a writer, editor, rewriter, ghostwriter, and proofreader.

Let's not invent new names or new rules, and let's not brush aside the old names and old rules, which have served us well in the past.

Instead let's concentrate on learning, using, and applying the old names and old rules.

My contemporaries and I began to study and to practice the principles of capitalization, including the ones under discussion here, while we were in the fourth grade.

Many of the comments (and some of the juvenile retorts) on this page and on several other talk pages closely resemble many of the classroom discussions in that grade and the following ones in elementary school.

Our teachers were not only caring and conscientious people but also well informed, well educated, and well trained experts and instructors.

They drilled us, and we practiced, and we learned the material – about capitalization and other stuff too – before we reached high school.

Sadly, the educational system has shortchanged many younger students – to the extent that many of them – including many of the participants at the Wikipedia – have received their diplomas and degrees without having learned much of the material which the schools were supposed to impart to them.

Again:  Let's not invent new names or a new grammar; instead let's learn and use the old grammar and its principles.

Go Navy (with an uppercase N)!

As always, best wishes to all,

Doc.

DocRushing (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I desire no innovation in the grammar of our language. I propose that proper names be set with an initial capital letter and that common nouns be set with a small initial letter. Same as it ever was. There are odd rules for some titles, other odd rules for titles and so on. I would suggest that an encyclopedia is a form of academic writing that would more closely follow an academic style guide than a journalistic one. But, as I said before, if we decide to change the rules of English grammar, please leave me a note on my talk page, and I shall enforce the new rule with the rigor I have applied to the old one. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is that it is not clear which words are proper nouns. If it were clear, the discussion above under Navy or navy would have been shorter.

It is clear that words such as university or navy are capitalized when they are used as part of the proper name of an institution such as the University of Kansas or the Indian Navy. It is not clear whether those words are proper nouns when used by themselves to refer to an institution, the full name of which, has been used earlier in the article. The language above is an attempt to make that clear.

I have no great attachment to the wording I proposed, but it was the best I could come up with to clarify the topic. I used the phrase full names of institutions instead of proper noun because in the MoS, it is not clear whether or not generic words for institutions are proper nouns when they refer to a specific institution.

I did check the capitalization of navy, per a 2004 copy of The Associated Press Stylebook because I've got one and because it has been referred to above. It says "Capitalize when referring to U.S. forces: the U.S. Navy, the Navy, Navy policy. Do not use the abbreviation USN. Lowercase when referring to the naval forces of other nations: the British navy. This approach has been adopted for consistency, because many foreign nations do not use navy as the proper name." That may make sense in American journalism, but in an international encyclopedia only capitalizing the United States Navy would seem inappropriate.

Thank you, SchreiberBike (talk) 06:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Note they called it a proper name, not a proper noun. "Navy" is a common noun even when capitalized as part of a proper name. — kwami (talk) 07:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm in favor of following Chicago here, which they allude to here. Coach Annie is capitalized, the coach is not. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the examples given in the cited source sidestep the main issue, though the text does so less - if one reads it exactly as written. The text says: "It doesn’t matter what the word is: captain, coach, aunt, joker, brain. If it’s used in place of a name, cap it." However the examples do not include what are sometimes called weak proper names, i.e. one that are capitalized but, in prose, are preceded by a definite article (usually not capitalized). Examples of this are "the City of London" and "the Tower of London". When the shortened form is used in place of the long name it is (as the cited source says) capitalized regardless. Thus you might "languish in the Tower", "work in the City", "have tea with the Queen", or - arguably - "sign a contract with the Navy". On the other hand, you might write that "the White Tower is the oldest tower in the Tower of London complex", or that London is "the city with a larger French population than Strasbourg". --Boson (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

An excellent contribution, Boson! There is also a matter of context that sometimes obtrudes. In a school magazine, it's common to see "the School" mentioned, likewise "the Navy" or "the University" in other institutional proprietary publications; and no-one should challenge such usage therein. However, such capitalisation is rarely justifiable in a non-proprietary (general-readership) publication such as Wikipedia. Personally, in such matters, I have always slavishly adhered to the old Oxford Authors' and Printers' Dictionary, and now the New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors. Bjenks (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ellipses and elided words

The guideline says to capitalize the first and last words of a title. But what if the title begins or ends with an ellipsis? There's a discussion at Talk:Sykes and A... over whether the "A" should be capitalized because it's the last word, or lowercase because the ellipsis elides the real last word. Powers ^T 12:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Dot the I

Are we satisfied that the closing admin made the right decision on this move review? I don't think I am... --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

So we need a Wikipedia:Move review review now? :P Jafeluv (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

We need something - neither closing admin went with consensus (or policy and guidelines)... --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I think a move review close should be reveiwable at move review. Alternatively, you could open an RfC on the close. I don't recommend either though, instead recommending a fresh RM, with a very careful statement that addresses all of the points made in opposition to the move in the previous RM. If you took the review close to formal review, I expect to see some criticism of engagin process with out a meaningful desired outcome (I know you see it otherwise). My input would be that the issue boils down to no consensus on whether the written policy applies to unusual cases. (I commented in the Move Review, but had not seen the RM while it was in progress). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Repeatedly starting new discussions until they result in the answer you're looking for is a horrendously bad idea. Please don't encourage it. Powers ^T 01:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

NBA Draft

At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#NBA_Draft_pages_being_moved we have a discussion where one project member jokingly invoked the Birds project to justify capitalizing "Draft". Comments? Dicklyon (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Unofficial movements, ideologies or philosophies within religions

The guideline "Unofficial movements, ideologies or philosophies within religions are generally not capitalized unless derived from a proper name" does not work in many cases. The example given of "Catholic" is not derived from a proper name (it is derived from the Latin word for universal). Protestantism, Presbyterianism, Reformed, Orthodox Christianity, Hesychasm, and Methodism are other words almost always capitalized which are not derived from proper nouns. The examples given of evangelicalism and fundamentalism are often capitalized in reliable sources. It seems to me that the best advice is to use the capitalization dominant in reliable sources. --JFH (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

In the context implied here all the quoted names – with the sole exception of hesychasm – did indeed derive from proper nouns – from the names of the corresponding movements or denominations.

Is user Hutson willing to try to persuade us that the word Christianity did not derive from the proper noun Christ?

The word catholic (with a lowercase c) refers to the church universal; the word Catholic (with an uppercase C) refers to the Roman Catholic Church or one or more of the other churches which share or follow the Catholic tradition.

The words Catholic (when referring to a Catholic church), Protestantism, Presbyterianism, Reformed (when referring to one or more of the denominations which emerged from the Calvinist tradition), Orthodox Christianity, and Methodism – every one of them – is properly capitalized – because each of them is a proper noun derived from a proper noun – not merely because one or more other writers, editors, typists, or typesetters have capitalized it.

[Hesychasm is not a movement or denomination but rather a school of thought about the mode or manner of personal prayer.]

Best wishes to all,

Doc.

DocRushing (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Christianity works based on the rule given, hence I never mentioned it. Please explain what you mean regarding the examples I mentioned. Saying they are derived from the names of the movements they describe, and are hence proper nouns, is circular. They are the names of these movements. What makes these movements different from evangelicalism and fundamentalism? --JFH (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This is really bothering me so I will ask a specific question in hope that I am more clear and receive a response. Usually we use "presbyterian" (lowercase) to refer to church government by representative assemblies (see Presbyterian polity) and "Presbyterianism" (capitalized) to refer to the movement of Scottish, English, and Irish Reformed churches with presbyterian government and their derivatives (see the first para of this Catholic Encyclopedia article). Presbyterianism in the second sense is an unofficial movement with many churches, and, especially at the beginning, unofficial movements within established churches. It is not derived from a proper noun, it is derived from "presbyterian" in the first sense which is derived from a Greek word. It is not derived from the name of any particular Presbyterian church, because there was at least one Presbyterian church (the Church of Scotland) before there was a church with "Presbyterian" in the name. So, should we stop capitalizing "Presbyterianism" and "Presbyterian" when we are referring to something that is part of the movement rather than part of a particular Presbyterian church? --JFH (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

What we do is follow the usage of reliable sources, and capitalizing "Presbyterian" is standard English. Heck, my browser ever marks the lowercase version as incorrect. oknazevad (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Generic words for institutions - another approach

Given the confusion in Navy or navy and Generic words for institutions above and the variation in capitalization of generic words for institutions in articles, I think the rule needs to be more clear.

I propose the following changes and additions to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Institutions (deletions are struck out and additions are underlined).

• Generic words for institutions (universityUniversity, collegeSociety, hospitalHospital, high schoolNavy) do not take capitalsare capitalized when referring to a specific institution:

I prefer the alternative in Generic words for institutions above, but I can hardly stand the present inconsistent usage. SchreiberBike talk 18:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization of determiners in composition titles

Can we change the current MOS:CT to say to capitalize "Every adjective, adverb, noun, pronoun, determiner and subordinating conjunction"? Please note the requested move discussion about "Running Up that Hill". Both dictionaries that I consulted, i.e., Collins and Oxford, categorize "that", as used in "Running Up that Hill", as a "determiner" (rather than as an adjective). The determiner article says that determiners have been "traditionally classed along with adjectives", and the role played by "that" in this phrase seems essentially like an adjective, so if adjectives are capitalized, determiners should also be capitalized. Adding determiners to the list would clarify the guidance. According to the determiners article, "modern theorists of grammar prefer to distinguish determiners as a separate word class from adjectives". —BarrelProof (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The Requested move that I referred to above has been closed (in a manner consistent with my suggestion). If the lack of response here continues, I may proceed with my suggested change. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer to see what style guides say about capitalizing such words in titles before we adopt it into our own. Do you have any that mention determiners, or examples of "that"? Dicklyon (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Since "a" and "the" are also determiners, the wording should not be changed as proposed. --Boson (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. (I just looked in a 1983 unabridged Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary (2nd Ed.) (by Simon & Schuster), and it calls "that" an adjective in the sense found in "Running Up that Hill". It doesn't seem to have a concept of a "determiner"; in fact its definition of "determiner" is "one who decides or determines; that which determines", without specifically mentioning a part of speech by that name.) —BarrelProof (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

In traditional English grammar, words like that are called demonstratives, and they function either as pronouns, as in "Yes Sir, That's My Baby", or as adjectives, as in the title you brought up above. It seems to me that they're therefore adequately covered by the existing guideline, which mentions both adjectives and pronouns. Too much linguistic nicety is likely to confuse editors rather than assist them. Deor (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Distinguishing between a determiner (a function in a noun phrase) and a determinative (a lexical category including words like a, the, and much) might be considered a "linguistic nicety", but I don't think we should assume that the term adjective unambiguously includes words like that, and I don't think we should encourage such an interpretation, which goes counter to modern linguistic theory. If that were an adjective, one should expect at least some phrases like "a that book", "thatter", "very that", "two that books". I wonder if it would actually be more sensible to replace the paragraph on what should be capitalized with the sentence: "All other words should be capitalized," possibly amending the preceding paragraph a little to include the few exceptions. --Boson (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Caps "Items that require initial lower case" (partially) scrap or edit?

I started (and almost finished) editing all the appearances of "k.d. lang" to proper English "K.D. Lang", before I actually realised it has bounced back and forth (wrongly, IMO) between the two uses several times before on WP. Huff!
(please see this MOS:CAPS archive search result ([2]), and the page's talk page ([3]) — both give references to previous goings-on and discussions with some of it irrational, ill conceived, or plainly not considering wider implications across the site).
I'm not going to repeat the pros and cons, but I thought one conclusion would be to scrap the ambiguity that is the rule below in favour of something else a bit simpler ([4]):

"Some individuals do not want their personal names capitalized. In such cases, Wikipedia articles may use lower case variants of personal names if they have regular and established use in reliable third-party sources (for example, k.d. lang). When such a name is the first word in a sentence, the rule for initial letters in sentences and list items should take precedence, and the first letter of the personal name should be capitalized regardless of personal preference."

Really, while she's entitled to write her name any way she wants, she's the one who is ultimately choosing to stylise her name for reason's only guessed at by anyone else, but WP need not repeat such stylisation for the sake of less site clutter on WP pages, and clarity of understanding by the reader. In all reality, this type of thing is usually being done for marketing reasons, and is essentially a typographic choice, as much as any other artist or consumer brand makes – i.e. fluff, inconsequential, unimportant to the integrity of the person or product. However, the reader may want to know, so something should be said on the matter on the page, but this could be done in a much simpler manner, similar to how we deal with other things, (e.g. Mac Mini comes to mind, read on).

Why not scrap that entirely, and instead just stick to the general style guide for capitalisation of people's names (thus keeping the article under correct WP style guide normalised English cap usage, as K.D. Lang), and instead just add a comment in the lede of the article as we do for products like the Mac Mini previously mentioned. The words 'often stylised as k.d. lang' (in the section below) clarify the issue enough, perhaps with a comment in the article about it if needing further explanation, which would cut down on the editing back and forth (not stop it entirely, but certainly cut down on these marginal cases):

Kathryn Dawn Lang, OC (born November 2, 1961), known by her stage name K.D. Lang, often stylised as k.d. lang, is a Canadian pop and country singer-songwriter and occasional actress.

This kills a few issues in one go:

• Firstly, it stops editors from endlessly switching pages back and forth (as mentioned above).
• Secondly, it means we can get rid of the confusing mid-text issue of using lower case for the second name, which doesn't make sense when every other main noun in WP would have a capital on them, e.g. "...and then lang recorded more..." better follows the main cap style guide as "...and then Lang recorded more...", and is certainly easier on the eye when reading.
• Thirdly, this would also be beneficial when naming other family members in the same article page, to avoid endless confusion, e.g. "...lang's mother doreen lang was more..." (would that be right or should the mother be cap'd? — even after reading ALL the current pages twice I was left completely unsure of family member naming in such articles?!), would just be the normalised "...Lang's mother Doreen Lang was more..." ending the confusion in editing and reading.
• Fourthly, all the subpages that refer to the person, either in the article title or mid-text (e.g. albums, singles, mentions on countless other article pages) also then don't have to incur the lower case issues that confuse the reader's eye, e.g. "...in London, lang and Orbison recorded..." looks unclear and wrong to the reader (and is likely to get a quick edit on repeatedly!), so instead would be "...in London, Lang and Orbison recorded..." by just following the general cap rules we all generally understand.
• Fifthly, as I said before, this really is a form of marketing, either commercially or socially, in the person's public life. One can rest assured that in the rest of the person's private life, they do not get to use lower case on everything else (passports, official docs, etc.), so why does WP have to intolerably follow some weird naming scheme for the person concerned, without being able to follow our own natural language style, for reasons of page clarity to our readers.
  

Overall, IMO having one or a few individuals across all the hundreds of thousands of people named on site with a rule all of their own by having lower case every time their name appears on the site (rather than just the lede on their main page, with perhaps a comment in the article if explanation is needed), seems entirely unnecessary to the WP reader, and stylistically for WP, is not needed to understand the text on site. Thoughts please? --Jimthing (talk) 07:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

To address your five issues:

• 1. That's simply not true. Having a clear rule doesn't stop people from breaking it. If it did, it would have prevented you from making the changes you have.
• 2. That's subjective. I don't think it's any easier on the eye.
• 3. I don't see any confusion in saying "k.d. lang's mother Doreen Lang".
• 4. I don't see a problem here. It doesn't confuse my eyes.
• 5. How is danah boyd's name an instance of marketing? But so what if marketing is involved? We write iPad and eBay, right? -- Irn (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

In response:

• 1. To clarify. As these people's names would follow proper English noun usage, there'd be less instance of users switching to the lowercase in every appearance of the name all over pages.
• 2. It's not subjective, it's objective. If WP is following natural English proper noun usage, then most users are going to find this easier to understand in a visual sense, when appearing on something as formal as an encyclopedic page.
• 3. It is confusing, as the first instance is not following proper En usage, while the second one then is.
• 4. But the rest of the site does not follow such page naming, so it does for the majority of users, as they are not going to understand the complete opposite to convention stylisation change all of a sudden.
• 5. Danah Boyd is marketing herself as much as anyone else is in their life & career. Marketing/selling oneself/attention seeking/political reasoning/et al — WP should not have to change it's whole style guide to fit-in with any such reasoning. (eBay and iPad operate are under a different rule, using the second letter for the capitalisation they still follow WP capitalisation rules — this is why we have the page called "Mac Mini" and not "Mac mini".) Being an encyclopedia, not a product/politic entity/or suchlike, we should be striving for authority of style, not kowtowing to any and all funky casing styles for main article page names and then repeated endlessly throughout articles. As I said, the lede can cover this quite nicely and succinctly, with or without the addition of some further comment in the article itself if needed. Jimthing (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• 1 The switching to lower-case isn't the problem; the switching is. Your proposed change doesn't help this.
• 2 Whether one finds it easier on the eyes is an opinion; there's no objective truth about what's easier on the eye. Further, can you prove to me that "most users" think it's easier on the eye?
• 3 It confuses you; I am not confused by it. Why do you think your experience is universal and not mine?
• 4 Actually, this is not about page naming, but use in all article space. So the rest of the site should use the lower-case as well.
• 5 So capitalizing the second letter makes it okay? If her name were dAnah bOyd, you'd be okay with that? Additionally, following your logic, "Lady Gaga" is mere marketing and we should always refer to her as "Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta".

-- Irn (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• As I have already said once on this page, the article name space belongs to WP, not to the subject matter. I would love to see all article name spaces rendered in the same manner and fixed technically rather than in the style typed by the editor (the article should still relate any stylisation). I favor upper and lowercase capitals. I have been shot down before, but I still have not seen a good reason why this shouldn't work.--Richhoncho (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"the article name space belongs to WP, not to the subject matter", absolutely, WP owns the namespace on here not the article's subject; hence my idea. "I favor upper and lowercase capitals", mmm, not sure what you mean exactly. Presumably you're advocating something like small caps? So we'd render to "K.D. Lᴀɴɢ" or "Dᴀɴᴀʜ Bᴏʏᴅ" for the page title &/or text on pages. I think that's an entirely separate discussion to be honest. Jimthing (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support you attempt to rationalize case along the lines suggested by MOS:CAPS and MOS:TM. K. D. Lang has registered the trademark "k.d. lang", but we don't have to use that as the title of the article about her, since her actually name is also not unusual in sources. Probably the same with Boyd. Dicklyon (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• I object to both the change you have proposed and the way you are trying to ram this down our throats.

I think that your viewpoint is valid and I think that standardization is a good goal. But as we've already discussed many times in many different venues, this is a relatively minor issue for us but a huge issue for the people whom we discussing so it's a minor issue for us to extend to them the courtesy of honoring how they self identify. It's also quite important to many people that using lower case names is often in line with what reliable sources use, an argument that is very similar to WP:COMMON.

The way in which you are going about this proposed change is entirely wrong and reprehensible. Not only do you need to revert your MOS- and consensus-breaking edits, you also need to stop edit-warring to enforce them and you need to stop using this discussion as an excuse for edit-warring. ElKevbo (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. This suggestion seems like a reasonable way to handle things. It still allows the lower-cased style preference to be listed in the lead of the article, while addressing the host of other problems that pop up in the meantime. --Elonka 15:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, as always.

* Will do absolutely not one single thing whatsoever to stop move/edit wars. Look, if we go with this, then we will eternally have people coming along and saying "wait, that's not right, that name is supposed to be lowercased", and get a move/edit war. If we go with current MOS, then we will eternally have people coming along and saying "wait, that's not right, proper English always capitalizes", and get a move/edit war. There is no solution, other than one side learning to live with disappointment on an essentially permanent basis. I do not plan to be on the side which does that, however, since

* A capitalization-preferring standard inherently violates NPOV, by injecting the subjective opinions of editors -- too often expressed as dismissiveness toward "silly", "vanity", "marketing", etc. orthography, over verifiable real-world usage.

* And leaving things as they are is less work than changing everything again (and then changing it all back in six months or a year when you're not paying attention and someone "silly" rams a MOS change through behind your back, and then changing it all back six months or a year after that, when you ram a revert back through...). One of the aphorisms of my preferred programming language tells me that "practicality beats purity". Less work is practical, more work is pure. Be practical. Leave it alone. Or, more succinctly, STAHP before we end up at WP:LAME again. Ubernostrum (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

First letter of a caption

Would you normally capitalize the first letter of a (e.g. picture) caption or not, and should it be in the MOS? For what (very little) it is worth I tend to think that they should all be capitalized unless there is some special case dictating otherwise. Here and here is an example ... I think it's right with the cap, but can't prove it and can't find anything in the MOS that helps. I am unlikely to start a fistfight over this. Comments please? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

To me, it's like any other text--you capitalize the first word of a sentence, right? It looks dreadful in lowercase! That's just me though. Red Slash 09:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm with you on this, though it's often not a sentence. But was was troubling me was my inability to find it said anywhere, which Deor (see below) has just helped with. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

There may be nothing on this page, but the "Captions" section on the main MOS page (MOS:CAPTION) says, "Captions normally start with a capital letter." Deor (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, interesting, thank you. I had found WP:CAPTION, which does not mention this, but not MOS:CAPTION. I'm glad that someone has written it down somewhere! Thanks again DBaK (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• There's another important element of MOS:CAPTION frequently not adhered to: captions don't end with a period unless they're full sentences. So don't think of captions as sentences, unless they are, grammatically. --BDD (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

  Setting aside grammatical issues, at a technical level a dot often helps when editing as demarcation point as to where a link to an object in a citation ends and the close square brackets of the image start. -- PBS (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Navy or navy

There seems to be a running dispute which I've accidentally wandered into and I'd like to get clarified. When speaking of a specific navy, such as the United States Navy, I think we all agree that the whole thing is capitalized. However, when you omit the United States part but are still speaking of a specific navy (obvious from context) I believe it should be "Navy". As in "The Navy has multiple submarines" which is different from "many countries have a navy". This is consistent with the NYT, AP and the US Navy themselves. The only thing it isn't consistent with (according to some people) is the Wiki MOS. I believe the MOS is simply ambigious and should be re-written to match the rest of the world. Using "navy" everywhere when referring to the US Navy looks extremely strange to my eye. Same thing for Army versus army. This is slightly different than the Marine versus marine topic above (which is speaking about a member of the force), but for the record, I agree with the NYT there as well and their rationale for following previous style (such as Catholic speaking of a person who follows the Catholic religion) makes sense. Kchinger (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

to match the rest of the world—A lot of the world would capitalize the way we do. This ngram suggests—even without discounting chapter and section headings—that the way we do it is more common. I always mess up ngram analysis, hopefully you can tell me what I'm doing wrong here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, you used "American Army", which people don't say anymore. If you used "United States" instead you get a very different result as shown here. However, I don't think any of that is relevant since what we're talking about is the noun without the identifier. No one disagrees that United States Army is correct (at least they shouldn't), it's whether it's Army or army when speaking about the US Army but leaving off the US part.--Kchinger (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

When the word navy refers to a specific navy, such as the US Navy or the Royal Navy, then the word navy becomes a proper noun (rather than a common noun) and therefore is correctly typed, printed, or written as Navy with an uppercase N – even where the adjectival prefix US is omitted.

An omission of the modifier US does not change the need to capitalize Navy – as long as Navy refers to a specific navy.

Best wishes to all from a former Naval officer and a submariner forever,

Doc.

DocRushing (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I think, if you're using our manual of style, that it might depend on the syntactic context: "There are Navy jobs that fit all backgrounds and interests."(maybe? I'm not sure) but "America’s navy offers careers and jobs." Both sentences are taken from here, where a different style guide is used—I modified the capitalization of the second to match our style. I don't think either guide is incorrect, they're just different. The question here is whether we should change our manual of style. I don't think we could make the change suggested here, though, without being inconsistent or without changing a lot of the rest of it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No one disagrees that United States Army is correct—Right; but that is why your ngram isn't very useful; I don't think anyone is arguing that "US Army" should be written "US army". The point of my ngram was to find cases where the army in question was obviously a specific army, but it wasn't being referred to by its "official" name. That is the question, right? What does an ngram that demonstrates capitalization of the official name show here? In any case, I think my ngram at least demonstrates that our style guide's preference is legitimate and in wide use; your "rest of the world" characterization is off. Where do we go from here? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

So I don't think either ngram is all that useful. The difference is a style difference, and style differences change over time. I've found that the Chicago Manual of Style uses the lowercase "navy" whereas the AP style guide (and as a result almost all journalistic style guides and house styles) uses "Navy". Publishers tend to use the Chicago manual, journalists the AP. I think the Wiki MOS just needs to pick one and be clear which one. Right now I don't think it's clear which one is supposed to be used. Interestingly, the AP guide only affords the uppercase to the US Navy, not other navies of the world. Perhaps to be in keeping with the international encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia the lowercase Chicago style would be better. I'd prefer the AP style myself because I just think it looks so much better, but I don't get to choose what's right. --Kchinger (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

That and (for this specific case, "Navy" vs. "navy") the Chicago style guide is typically used in history topics. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the same argument which comes up with phrases like the society when referring to organizations such as the Society of Jesus and the university in any number of university articles. My reading of the MOS is that they should not be capitalized, but I find them frequently capitalized. I don't see it explicitly in the MOS, but in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Institutions all the examples are lower case. If that's our rule, it should be explicit. Many institutions capitalize their own university name in their own publications e.g. "University, when referring to the University of Rochester, is always capitalized", but I don't think that applies in a general encyclopedia. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

This is weird – my intuition tells me to use a capital S in the Society, a small U in the university, and is mostly indifferent about the Navy vs the navy. (This probably just means that my intuition is full of crap, though.) Cf also the moon vs the Moon (when specifically referring to Earth's natural satellite), the internet vs the Internet, etc. — A. di M.  10:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the University takes the capital U in the very specific case that the phrase is a shorthand for the University of This or That, a proper noun. I think that, even in an encyclopedia, if we were to use that shorthand, then it should take the capital U. The question is whether we ought to use that shorthand at all.

For some reason I feel this is maybe a bit clearer for my undergrad school, Caltech, which in its own publications is sometimes called the Institute (short for California Institute of Technology). You wouldn't naturally call it an institute (it's a "school" or a "university"), and when you call it the Institute, well, that's a proper noun. If we call it that, in its article, then it ought to take the capital I. But is there any good reason to call it that? Perhaps not. --Trovatore (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The simple fact is most people use too many capital letters. Further, many sources use funny capitalization (i.e. "Air Force" when referring to the USAF). This is the Specialist style fallacy. Some USAF publication (or Caltech, or whatever) might be the last word on things related to their own sphere, they are not style guides. Wikipedia is a generalist publication. It ought not to adopt unique vocabulary, style or the other trappings of technical and specialist publications. Frankly, I like the present rule for the simple reason that it is simple. Do we really want a rule that has eighty-five exceptions? I have honestly heard it said that we ought to write, "He wants to be president," but also "The President today said." Why not just keep to the old, simple, rule? Is there a need for a confusing change? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The simple fact is most people use too many capital letters— Says who? You? The AP would say Chicago style doesn't use enough. I hardly think there are 85 exceptions. If you would have used a long form of an institution name with capitals, but are instead using a shortened form of the full name for the sake of brevity or ease of reading or tone or because you're a slow typist or whatever you want, then the capital letters remain. Seems pretty simple to me. The present rule is not only no simpler than the AP style rule, it goes against many people's intuition, which makes it hard to learn. And for the record, "Air Force" looks perfectly normal to me when referring to USAF. This is hardly the "trappings of technical and specialist publications" and to portray it as such is disingenous. The Associated Press, New York Times, and most other major (and minor) journalistic outfits are far from "specialist publications". Kchinger (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

To me it's perfectly clear that we should capitalize Institute if it's being used as shorthand for California Institute of Technology. That's just a general rule of English orthography — capitalize proper nouns. The question is whether or not we ought to use that shorthand (which is not really on topic at the capital-letters page). --Trovatore (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I am very sorry I have upset you, Kchinger. Please let me know when your improvement of the language is complete and I shall enforce those rules. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it comes across in some of the foregoing, but I think the main problem is that a rule of English (regardless of any style guides) is that nouns (and some other parts of speech) used in proper names are capitalized but a word like "army" or "president" can be used either as

• a common noun (unambiguous in "any army in the world"),
• an alternative proper name (fairly unambiguous in the complete sentence "Your contract is with the Army." or
• as part of a proper name (usually unambiguous in "the United States Army" but potentially ambiguous in "the army of the United States");

however sometimes only the writer can say whether the word was being used as a common noun or as (part of) a proper name. If I write "The presidents of France, Germany, and America . . .", the relevant words are clearly being used as common nouns, but if the next sentence refers back to "the president of France" (or "the president of America", or "the president of the United States"), it may not be clear to everybody, including a typesetter who is not the author, that "president" is being used as a common noun. So some style guides may (over-) simplify the rules; if the MoS wants to do this, it should state so explicitly. --Boson (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I endorse using the capital when it's clear that one is referring specifically to the United States Navy. Since its usually after an initial mention that includes the full name, it is no different than referring to someone after the first mention of them by last name. In other words, just as one would say John Smith was blah blah. Smith was also this and that., it is correct to say The United States Navy is the main margins force if the US. The Navy has many bases. Likewise with the US Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, or Congress. (In each of those cases I just used, the capital is appropriate because I am using a short form of a proper noun that itself is still a proper noun because it unambiguously refers to a particular, distinct entity.) oknazevad (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I hear the consensus above as favoring the capitalization of generic names for institutions when it is clear which institution is being referred to or when the full name of the institution has been used earlier in the text. However, I read the MOS as saying that we should not capitalize in those cases.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Institutions says, (table formatting removed)

• Generic words for institutions (university, college, hospital, high school) do not take capitals:
  

Incorrect || (generic): || The University offers programs in arts and sciences.

Correct || (generic): || The university offers programs in arts and sciences.

Correct || (title): || The University of Delhi offers programs in arts and sciences.

Is the consensus above against the MOS, or am I misunderstanding? Thanks, SchreiberBike (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

My view is that it is not a question of it being "clear what institution is being referred to". Rather, it's a question of whether the word is being used as shorthand for the full name.

So, even if it's clear that we're talking about the University of Kansas, it's perfectly fine to use the university, with the minuscule u, if you're using university as a description of KU (which is, after all, a university). However, if you're using the word as short for University of Kansas, then you ought to capitalize it, because it's a proper noun. --Trovatore (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus to back off from what MOS:CAPS says. If we capitalized all the words that refer to specific entities, we'd capitalize a whole bunch of things, far from avoiding unnecessary caps as the MOS recommends; where would we draw the line? If you think we should change it to recommend caps for certain uses, make a specific proposal to that effect in an RFC. Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Trovatore. Speaking without reference to the MoS, if a noun (preceded by, for instance, "the" or "this") is used to refer back to something known that was previously mentioned (an anaphoric reference), then lowercase is appropriate; if the noun is used as an alternative proper name to refer directly to the same institution (the real-world entity, rather than a grammatical antecedent), then uppercase would be appropriate. As a simple test: if "the" could be replaced by "this" (without altering the author's intended meaning), lowercase is appropriate. For members of a particular university, the word "University" may be seen as a proper name (in the same way as "the Queen" is an alternative proper name for Queen Elizabeth II in Britain), but this is less likely in a more general context, such as Wikipedia, so the example given in the MoS seems appropriate - at least as a rule of thumb. --Boson (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I admit to being unskilled in the details of grammar. I think I've learned the basics of anaphoric references and understand that they would not be capitalized. I've gone to look at some featured articles about universities to see how they deal with the issue and I am finding what seems to me to be inconsistent usage or maybe I'm still not understanding. Would this work as a rule?

• If the the University of Kansas could be substituted for the university in a sentence, then university should be capitalized.

Thanks for helping clarify this for me. SchreiberBike (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with that formulation. The question is not whether the University of Kansas could be substituted and it would still make sense. The question is whether the phrase is being used as a short version of the University of Kansas. That's a question of fact, not style, and no style rule can be written that solves it for you — you have to really figure out whether that is or should be the intent of the text in the case you happen to be looking at. --Trovatore (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Even if the generic term is being used to refer to the specific entity, why capitalize it? Are there style guides that say to do so? Here a university's style guide, a supplement to the AP guide, lowercases "university" when referring to itself (though it doesn't specifically say to do so; as in 'Capitalize the formal names of schools, academic departments and divisions of the university.'). Here is another; they say 'use “the university” (lowercase)' to refer to themselves. Another says 'University, by itself, meaning Duke, is never capitalized.' And another, 'Lowercase "university" when referring to Virginia Tech in text.' Does the AP guide say to capitalize such? I can't find a copy. Dicklyon (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're using the term as a generic term, even referring to the specific entity, then it's lowercase. If you're using it as a short version of the name of the entity, then it's uppercase. This is grammar, not style. --Trovatore (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, then, where's the grammar guide that backs you up on that assertion? Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Any one that says names are proper nouns. Shouldn't be hard to find. --Trovatore (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, but certain times the difference between using a generic term and using a name is semantically immaterial. In the article The Dark Side of the Moon, “The Dark Side of the Moon” and “the album” would mostly be interchangeable; likewise, in an article about the United States Navy, “the [United States] Navy” and “the navy” would in principle be interchangeable... but I think that using both “the Navy” and “the navy” to refer to it in the same article would be potentially confusing. — A. di M.  09:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're talking about The Dark Side of the Moon and you call it the album, that's clearly a description (meaning if you use the capital A, it's wrong). It doesn't make sense as a short version of the name — the word album doesn't even appear in the name.

As to potential for confusion, sure, that's a point for editors to take into account when writing the article, to be weighed against whatever advantage they think there is in using a shortened proper name. There may not even be a lot of situations where shortened proper names make sense. But if you do use one, you should obviously capitalize it. --Trovatore (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm still trying to get clarification on this because this comes up frequently and is the same issue as Navy/navy. I'll use University of Oxford as an example and link to this version to try to keep things clear. The first paragraph uses the phrase "The University grew rapidly from 1167 ..." The same paragraph includes "... has been used in official university publications". Are both uses correct? In both, it's clear that they are referring to Oxford, the full name could be substituted for university, and it seems like they are using university as "shorthand for the full name". Is there agreement here as to what is right? Is there agreement here as to what MOS:CAPS#Institutions says we should do? Thanks, SchreiberBike (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No, capitalization is not necessary in either case, so per MOS:CAPS, WP prefers to use lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization of these one-word shortenings of institution names is usually done only by authors with some kind of affiliation with the institution. When you use a capital in phrases like "the Queen", "the President", "the University", "the Navy", "the Society", it's almost equivalent to writing "our queen", "our president", "our university", "our navy", "our society". Because of Wikipedia's NPOV policies we don't write in the first person, and we should also not use honorific capitals like this. Indefatigable (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Both navies have ordered the new technology ... The British and US navies have ordered the new technology ... The US navy has ordered the new technology. Tony (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Each of those first two examples is correct, but the third one is wrong – because US Navy clearly and unmistakably refers to one specific navy – exactly as though it were written, typed, or printed in full as United States Navy.

This is not a new, strange, different, variant, or alternative principle; it's precisely the same principle which "everyone" in our school system learned in past years, starting in the fourth grade.

Questions and uncertainties about this principle have begun to bubble up to the surface partly due to the failure of many teachers, many schools, many school systems, and even a few textbooks – due to the failure of them to teach this principle, along with much other material.

Such questions and uncertainties graphically illustrate, in many instances, the dismal failure of our educational system to prepare our students as well as they should, and as well as they have in the past.

In past years "everyone" (with a few occasional exceptions, of course) knew how to recognize a proper noun and when to use an uppercase letter.

The principle and the grammar rule have not changed; only the teaching of them, the learning of them, and the observance of them have changed.

Doc.

DocRushing (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

This same subject has recently come under discussion on the talk page of another user ("The ed17").
In the hope that it may help here, I now take the liberty of posting a copy of it here:

Hello! I changed all instances of "navy" to "Navy" in USS Iowa turret explosion, then noticed afterward you had previously undone a similar edit, giving the reason of "(undo - it's "U.S. Navy" or "navy")". This is incorrect according to Wikipedia's style guideline found here.

Formal names of military units, including armies, navies, air forces, fleets, regiments, battalions, companies, corps, and so forth, are proper nouns and should be capitalized. However, the words for types of military unit (army, navy, fleet, company, etc.) do not require capitalization if they do not appear in a proper name. Thus, the American army, but the United States Army.

Navy (short for the full proper name United States Navy), is a proper noun and thus requires capitalization :)

--CumbiaDude (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this is the current topic of a discussion on the talk page of that guidelines, and it looks like that is going against that view. ;-) Typical usage on Wikipedia and in the world is "navy", as far as I know. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

CumbiaDude, you're exactly right!  Hang in there, stick to your guns, and keep your powder dry.

Your corrections comply with a principle which has been settled, taught, learned, and practiced for many decades.

Simply stated, when the word navy clearly refers to a specific navy, such as the US Navy or the Royal Navy, even in the absence of a preceding adjectival expression, that word then and there functions as a proper noun, and it therefore requires an uppercase initial letter.

However, there are a few style books and a few house style sheets which defy the logic of the established decision rules for what's a proper noun and what's properly capitalized.

Further, there's also a small group of users at the Wikipedia who appear to be on a crusade to defy and oppose the accepted grammar rule and to follow the lead of the alternative opposing view – and to force that variant view into the Wikipedia MoS and therefore onto the rest of our part of the world.

Please note that most of those minority activists – the ones who seek to change the old rules – appear not to have the advantage of extensive qualifications (education, training, expertise, and experience away from the Wikipedia) in grammar, writing, rewriting, and proofreading.

One of them refers to the erroneous lowercase letters as "typical usage", and another calls it "standard English usage".

Do not believe them, because they're absolutely wrong on that point.

Besides, Theodore Bernstein, one of my heroes, a long-time and revered assistant managing editor and adjunct professor at Columbia University, has forcefully said that rarely can we find truth in grammar or anything else merely by counting noses or a show of hands.

Again, CumbiaDude, hang in there!

As always, best wishes to all,

Doc.

DocRushing (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion, but characterizing the Chicago Manual of Style as a minority activist is a bit much, I think... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, Chicago might have great hot dogs, but I'd have to disagree with Chicago - abbreviating "United States Navy" as "navy" would be the same as abbreviating "Theodore Roosevelt" as "roosevelt", IMHO. It's still a proper noun, even in the shortened form. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's fair, we all have our own opinions ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, there are, among others, several style books and several house style sheets which defy the logic of the established decision rules for what's a proper noun and what's properly capitalized.

The Chicago style is an example of that on this particular point; that is, on this point the Chicago style defies the logic of the established decision rules for what's a proper noun and what's properly capitalized.

Many years ago one of my professors expressed the view that some of the style books, some of the house style sheets, and some of the organizations go out of their way to attract attention to themselves by their deliberate nonconformance.

She also explained that some of the nonconformist tendencies (on the question of capitalization of proper nouns) appear to be grounded in part in typographic history – an attempt to simplify and speed up the old process of manual typesetting and, later, the use of Linotype and other such labor-intensive processes.

Nonetheless, proper nouns require uppercase initial letters, and to fail and refuse to capitalize them is to defy and ignore a clear and well established rule of grammar.

At the Wikipedia there is a small group of users who appear to be on a crusade to defy and oppose the accepted grammar rule, to follow the lead of the alternative opposing view, and to force that variant view into the Wikipedia MoS.

There's a simple question:   Do we prefer to follow an undeniably correct rule of grammar, or are we willing to follow the poor example of an ill-guided tendency?

In other words, shall we choose to follow those style books which respect and follow an established rule of grammar, or shall we choose to follow one or more other style books which defy and oppose a time-tested, time-proved, time-honored rule of grammar?

Shall we do it the right way, or shall we do it a wrong way and try to pretend that it's OK because someone else has done it wrong?

The proper way to resolve this matter is not to rely on personal opinions but rather on the clear and undeniable applicable rules of grammar.

Again, best wishes to all,

Doc.

DocRushing (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Chicago leans towards downcasing, although it acknowledges that usage varies widely. The modern style is the federal government, for example. How do you resolve the issue of both navies are purchasing the new vessels (e.g., the British and US navies)? Tony (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Tony:

I agree with the general tendency of the Chicago MoS toward downcasing, because I heartily agree that too many people in the US, while writing English, tend to use too many uppercase initial letters.

The overuse of capital initials results from a widespread difficulty in recognizing which words are proper nouns or adjectives, and which are common ones.

Yes, I too tend to downcase – but only in instances where particular nouns or adjectives do not function as proper ones.

Let's look at your examples:

The federal government (or a state government, county government, or city government) is absolutely correct, not only in a modern style but in a traditional one as well – because government is a common noun, and federal, state, county, and city in that context are common adjectives.

Further, strictly speaking, US government, with a lowercase g, also is correct – because there is no specific agency, organization, or institution bearing the official title of "US Government" or "United States Government".

Now the navies:  Both navies and the British and US navies are also both correct – because in both instances navies does not refer to either of the two specific navies in question.

On the other hand, however, if we write "both the Royal Navy and the US Navy", then in each instance Navy refers to a specific navy.

Consider these parallels:

I address my maternal parent as "Mother", because she is my mother; further, there are many other mothers who live on the same street.  [In these three instances only Mother as a name for a specific person is a proper noun, so only it gets a capital M; each of the other two is a common noun, so it does not get a capital M.]

One of my friends, Lieutenant Commander W.T. Door, is the executive officer of a submarine; he is a lieutenant commander in the US Navy; the welcome-aboard brochure identifies him as "LCdr. W.T. Door, USN, Executive Officer.  [In this first reference to my friend, his rank functions, along with his name, as a part of a proper-noun phrase and thus gets a cap L and a cap C, but the rank otherwise (as a lieutenant commander in the Navy) is merely a common-noun phrase and thus gets lowercase initials; likewise the term executive officer is a common-noun phrase unless it becomes directly tied to a specific person who occupies that position (identified by an official title).]

Well, I genuinely and sincerely hope that that helps.

Incidentally, most of my words above closely resemble the classroom discussions which took place while I was in the fourth grade (1949-50), when my schoolmates and I learned about capitalization.

I find it sad that nowadays so many of the teachers and many of the schools just no longer teach the fundamentals as well as in past years.

Before I retired from education (as a professor of business, including business communication), every year every incoming class of new students was in general slightly less well prepared than the one in the previous year.

Now, in my retirement, I serve as a volunteer instructor in a free GED course (which I created) in a community-service ministry at my church in a downtown location.

In that setting I repeatedly feel amazed and dismayed about the poor preparation of my students there; for example, most of them have great difficulty with the multiplication tables, which my peers and I learned in the third grade.

Oh, well; we try hard to do as well as we can with what we have.

If you have another question, please ask.

I'll gladly lend a hand.

Best wishes,

Doc.

DocRushing (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that when referring to a particular navy, such as by shortening "the United States Navy" to "the Navy", then "Navy" should be capitalized. --Pine^✉ 20:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Pine, DocRushing, CumbiaDude, Kchinger and others: Navy should be capitalized when it's shorthand for the U.S. Navy, like in the USS Iowa turret explosion article. I've never (in over 50 years) seen it not capitalized in similar situations and there's no reason to not capitalize it now. If this is really an American usage vs. British usage type of thing, then we'll go with the American usage when it involves the U.S. Navy—capitalize Navy. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• For those who believe navy should always be capitalized when referring to a specific navy, I'd like to understand this better. How does this apply for university, museum or similar words for institutions? Also, are you thinking that you are following the Wikipedia MoS by capitalizing navy, or are you thinking that the MoS should be changed? Thanks, SchreiberBike (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• In general when shortening a proper name I think the shortened version should be capitalized, such as is commonly done in the articles Royal Marines which in all but one case shortens the full name to "the Marines". But you're right in pointing out that Wikipedia is inconsistent in practice. For example, we have the article Harvard University in which the subject's name is usually, not always, shortened to "the university". I've also seen that different FAs seem to have different ways of capitalizing the names of species, for example the featured article King Island Emu capitalizes every word in the English version of the species' name and shortens the name to "the Emu", but the featured article Ramaria botrytis uses lower case when it says that a common name for the species is "pink-tipped coral mushroom" and shortens the name to "the fungus". So capitalization generally appears to be inconsistent even in featured content. I think there was an RFC about capitalization somewhere, maybe someone can find it. I think generally that shortened versions of proper names should be capitalized. I'm indifferent about whether an English spelling of a species' name should be capitalized, but if it's capitalized then the shortened version should also be capitalized. --Pine^✉ 06:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Excellent point made by Kwami about the difference between proper names and proper nouns. On Pine's example of "the Marines", after "the Royal Marines" has already been cited in a text—the Oxford style guide, Hart's New Rules, is equivocal on this point. Tony (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

US-centric AP style

The AP Style Guide says "Capitalize when referring to U.S. forces: the U.S. Navy, the Navy, Navy policy. ... Lowercase when referring to the naval forces of other nations: the British navy. This approach has been adopted for consistency, because many foreign nations do not use navy as the proper name." Consistency? Maybe WP can be more consistent by treating the US the same as "foreign" nations. Dicklyon (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the insistence on the "one size fits all" approach. The AP Style Guide recognizes that in the USA, we capitalize the names of the branches of our Armed Services, and that other English speaking countries don't capitalize theirs. Is it helpful if we think of it as a spelling variation? We Yanks have our Navy and our humor; everyone else has their navy and their humour. Wikipedia allows this sort of regional variation—it's a form of tolerance. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Dicky, after we successfully uncapitalize the US Navy, since the capital "N" is "unnecessary", isn't the next step to start getting rid of all those unnecessary u's in British words like humour and neighbour, and those silly esses in words like civilise when we all know they should be zeds. I mean, English should be the same the world over, right? I mean, we're all worshippers of the god Consistency here, right? --108.45.72.196 (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see this as a spelling variation so much as a rule of thumb used by the AP Style Guide to make life easier for copy editors. As the Guide says, it is a simplification of the rule about capitalizing proper names. When giving advice to American journalists writing for American publications aimed almost exclusively at American readers, it makes sense to treat "the Navy" as a proper name standing in for "the United States Navy". In publications aimed exclusively at a British readership, it would make similar sense to treat "the Navy" as standing in for "the Royal Navy" (in the same way as "the Queen" is used for the current British monarch). On the other hand, I would expect to see "The American navy has more aircraft carriers than the British and French navies together", since it is not likely that "the American navy" is being used as a proper name in this context. If the writers of the AP Style Guide want to oversimplify and recommend "the American Navy" (in publications aimed at American readers), that is their business. --Boson (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

British It is not the "British navy" it is British Army and Royal Navy ([5] [6]) -- I won't bore you with the constitutional/historical reasons for this naming difference. Boston although as a Brit the tendency would be to write "American navy" wouldn't it be better (more international) to write "The U.S. Navy has more aircraft carriers than the British and French navies together" (or if in a British style topic "The US Navy...")? -- PBS (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Der, die, das (the) German thing

The English tea -- der englische Tee. I saw "German länder", which really made me stop reading. The plural “Länder” is really a German noun (ä!), and I think the Manual of Style does not advice to have it with a l as in →like. Traditional and modern names or titles, see: merry ↔ lustig, and amazing (here: fantastic, adj.)

• The Merry Wives of Windsor (in German: Die lustigen Weiber von Windsor) is an opera in three acts by Otto Nicolai to a German libretto by S...
• Die Fantastischen Vier (redirect from Fanta4), Fantastisch (in German) instead of fantastisch. (The German name in an English style, but Die Toten Hosen did the same) --Haigst-Mann (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

As one with a German-American heritage, and as one who has read and spoken German most of his life, since 1958, I recognize, understand, and appreciate the concern of Haigst-Mann.

Often I too feel displeased when I see a misquoted or miscopied word or passage from the Muttersprache.

At the Wikipedia and elsewhere, when quoting or copying any textual matter written in another language, the basic principle is to follow the rules and conventions used in whatever that other language may be.

That means, for example, that we should respect and follow the German principles by retaining umlaut vowels (where applicable) and by writing nouns with uppercase initial letters and adverbs and adjectives with lowercase initial letters, even in the titles of musical or literary works.

[By the way, Haigst-Mann, die Familienname of my ancestors – before they left Deutschland – was Ruschen; it became anglicized into Rushing in England before some of my ancestors continued to the British colonies in North America (to Virginia, then onward to North Carolina, Tennessee, and beyond).]

Best wishes to all,

Doc.

DocRushing (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Japanese song and album titles

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Japanese song and album titles in regards to Japanese song titles and MOS:CT is relevant to the discussion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Board game names

Is there a MOS expert here to give answer on whether board game names fall under "compositions" and thus should have all words in the game name capitalized. (The deal is for example, there is a definite predominance to use lower-case "chess" in chess variant game names with that word, for example Capablanca chess, Grand chess, Alice chess and a host of others [with some exceptions, mostly perhaps the variant articles that this editor has created]. Anyway, I'd like to rectify this by changing all game names to upper-case "Chess" that have that word as part of the identifiable game name, but since that effort if successful will require many article renames and will reverse the current WP predominant practice, I would like to get a definitive answer before undertaking said project, or do I need a consensus at WP:CHESS, or what?) Please see an initiation of this discussion topic at Talk:Capablanca chess#WP:MOS and Titles. Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)