User:Andrewa/Capitalisation in article titles

Welcome[edit]

This page... like all user pages... belongs to the community, not to the user. It exists to help improve Wikipedia. So again, welcome, and feel free to edit it.

Edits here should not be signed (although of course they are automatically attributed in the page history). Please leave any signed edits on the talk page. However, feel free to link to signed talk page discussions where they are relevant. These links can be normal wikilinks, or permalinks or diffs as appropriate. Link to sections of longer discussions, or even place an anchor there to link straight to a particular point. You can even link to this page's own talk page.

For clarity, please place each link to a discussion or example in a bullet point of its own. This bullet may also contain text to clarify the relevance of the link.

Purpose of the page[edit]

To present, link to and annotate arguments and evidence for and against capitalisation in article titles of words that are not proper names in the strictest sense.

By far the most important of these three is the links. Some summarisation of the arguments and commentary on them will probably be be helpful here, but the comments mainly belong on the talk page, and both the arguments presented here and any commentary on them should ideally be both supported and sourced by links. The whole idea is not to reinvent the wheel.

Capitalisation in running text[edit]

This page focusses on article titles, but usage in running text should ideally be consistent with usage in article titles, and vice versa.

Diff at WT:AT exploring some of the differences between considerations for article titles and running text
Diff in a related discussion at WT:Naming conventions (capitalization) Actually, I am more focused on article titles rather than usage within articles...

For that reason alone, arguments for and against capitalisation in running text are relevant to this page, but that is their only relevance here. Where there is a consensus elsewhere on capitalisation in running text, that is an argument for using the same style in article titles where possible, and should be included below.

But it may not be a conclusive argument. There may be other considerations.

Why is it in user space[edit]

This topic has an unfortunate history of long, rambling and often heated discussion, including disputes over refactoring. In user space, the user can exercise a little control over the refactoring. Not a great deal, see above, but hopefully some.

Please discuss any proposed refactoring on the talk page before doing it unilaterally, but also accept that user:andrewa may refactor without notice any page in their user space (but not their user talk space, where comments are signed and will be respected as such). And if you want to perform an undiscussed or controversial refactor, just fork the page to your own user space. Please.

It's in British English by default, obviously by the title, but American English also is welcome. There is no need for consistency on this. Other varieties may be corrected, but please discuss first.

Arguments in favour of capitalisation[edit]

Capitalisation is reflected in reliable sources[edit]

Ideally, we want links here to Google Books or Google Scholar searches, or to individual online examples, as well as a wikilink to a capitalised Wikipedia article name that is backed by reliable sources. But just the article name is better than nothing.

Common names of bird species[edit]

Common Gull
- http://www.birdguides.com/species/species.asp?sp=061013

Cat and dog breeds[edit]

British Shorthair

Plant cultivars[edit]

Car models[edit]

Morris Major

Others[edit]

If there are more than two or three in a similar subject area, consider creating a new subheading

Industrial Revolution - Not relevant, that's clearly a proper name
- Agrarian revolution (a DAB page)
- Cultural Revolution
Certified General Accountant
Royal Court used in running text in Wikipedia

Capitalisation enhances clarity[edit]

Arguments against capitalisation[edit]

Capitalisation is "wrong"[edit]

Capitalisation is confusing[edit]

Capitalisation violates guidelines and/or policies[edit]

Discussions where both views are aired[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Formal job titles, formal certification titles, and degree names
- To me it seems like having a few specific guidelines for article titles would improve consistency, while consistent use in running text within articles is less easy to achieve and also less important. [1]