Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proper names

It is my recollection that the section "Proper names" was merged into MOS:CAPS from a WP page of the same name not all that long ago. Regardless of the semantics, it is a common WP practice to refer to words and phrases that are consistently capitalised as proper nouns|names as defined in the lead of MOS:CAPS. I would observe that the section heading may (and has) been construed to create an exception to the lead definition/criteria. I would therefore propose removing this section from MOS:CAPS but retaining the sub-sections therein and have boldly done so per this edit. I would move the associated shortcuts to the lead but I have not done this yet. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

And I've undone your edit. It's hard to see this as anything other than an attempt to get around points made at requested moves/move reviews, like the one we're both currently participating in. -- Vaulter 15:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

And by the way, the bit about proper names has been on this page in some form since at least 2016 (I didn't bother going further back than 500 revisions) [1]. And the merger you referenced occurred in 2018 [2]. -- Vaulter 15:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized. And how do we (WP) determine what is a proper name? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Ideally, by understanding Proper noun and the discussion of capitalization there. Peter coxhead (talk)

Pro-capitalization editors like to pretend as if there were some ironclad rule distinguishing proper nouns from commons and dictating which should be capitalized. That’s not the case as the Proper noun article itself observes: Although these rules have been standardized, there are enough gray areas that it can often be unclear both whether an item qualifies as a proper name and whether it should be capitalized: "the Cuban missile crisis" is often capitalized ("Cuban Missile Crisis") and often not, regardless of its syntactic status or its function in discourse. Most style guides give decisive recommendations on capitalization, but not all of them go into detail on how to decide in these gray areas if words are proper nouns or not and should be capitalized or not.

The point is that the distinction is often arbitrary, and “but that’s a proper noun!” isn’t an argument against an MOS rule that says a particular category of phrase (e.g., MOS:JOBTITLES) is treated as a common noun. Wallnot (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The subsection doesn't really fit into MOS:CAPS. We could very reasonably mention how to determine if something is a proper noun, but the subsection doesn't do that, and instead mostly focuses on what name to use for things, which is not a CAPS issue. I support removal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

About two years ago, the pro-lower case editors began pushing & getting consensus on quite a few topics. At some point, there has to be a line that shouldn't be crossed. We can't lower case everything. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The line is what a substantial majority of reliable secondary sources capitalize, as the guideline itself says. Wallnot (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

No doubt, eventually attempts will be made to lower-case entirely, article titles. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

That would be silly, and wouldn't stand a chance. I've been accused of wanting to stamp out all capitalization, but actually I only favor removing capitalization that's inconsistent with our P&G. I think sentence case (initial cap) is fine for titles, and of course caps are "required" where sources cap consistently. Dicklyon (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Give it time. A wave can get out of control. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, this push to reduce excess capitalization didn't start 2 years ago. I've been at it for nearly 15 years, I think, and in the great majority of cases I get more thanks than pushback. Today I got this nice note. Dicklyon (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I only hope you're correct, that there'll continue to be some limits. GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It's important to remember that whether something is a proper name or not and whether something should be capitalized or not are two different questions. These concepts are often conflated. Proper names are capitalized, but the mere fact of being consistently capitalized does not mean that something is a proper name. For example, brand names (e.g., "Chevrolet") and product names (e.g., "Camaro") are not proper names, but they are capitalized. Adjectives derived from the names of places (e.g., "Roman") are not proper names, but they are capitalized. Please see my accompanying edit about this. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The borderline between what is and is not a proper name/capitalized is wavy and frayed. Chevrolet is a division of a company and named after Louis Chevrolet. Camaro is a designation for a series of designs and convention has decided that we capitalize those, though I can imagine that could have gone another way. Proper adjectives like Roman are a thing and in English are capitalized. The edit referenced above added "brand names"; that seems unnecessary as brands are already proper nouns. I think it would be better if ", such as proper names, demonyms and brand names" were removed as "terms that would ordinarily be capitalized in running prose" is sufficient. I don't agree that proper name and capitalization are two different questions, but I agree that it's hard to come up with a clear definition of proper noun that always works and everyone agrees on. On Wikipedia we've come up with the compromise: "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia". That doesn't always come out the way I think it should, but it's an effective compromise. SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia" is the most meaningful interpretation/compromise for WP purposes. I know some editors, such as CinderellaNNN, like to get all theoretical about what's a proper name and what's not, but I value data over theory. I agree with them on removing that odd paragraph. Dicklyon (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree on that language. This may call into question Wikipedia's common sense approach to astronomical names, such as Sun, Moon, Solar System, Earth, etc., which are not consistently capitalized in sources but are logically capitalized on Wikipedia. Would this override consensus on the beforementioned Cuban Missile Crisis? Language should reflect that there are exceptions. And an interesting question at Kill Bill, is the character The Bride lowercased "the" or uppercased "The" in running text? Would the proposed language here take precedence in character proper names such as this? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's funny that what to you is "logically" done on WP is the opposite of what many style guides specifically say (e.g. NASA's). To me, terms like Universe, Solar System, etc. (also Cuban Missile Crisis) seem inappropriately over-capitalized on WP compared to how they are treated in our reliable sources. Dicklyon (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

And so it goes, and maybe why you are trying to put this new language into the MOS to achieve these ends. Universe isn't included in caps, but Solar System and, how do you put it? etc.? (Sun, Moon, Earth), and you toss in the Cuban Missile Crisis, would be overturned by this new language, well, that's an overreach of well-established Wikipedia norms on Sun, Moon, Earth, and Solar System. Please explain, in 6 million words or less, how Sun, Earth, and Moon are not proper names? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

NASA says that when you put "the" in front of "sun" or "moon" it's not a proper name. Maybe that's too strict. The big problem with those is that they're supposed to be considered proper names in astronomical contexts, but not when you say "the sun rose" or "the moon is full tonight", which are about our perceptions of them on the ground; yet all too often editors claim those are astronomical contexts and cap them. Universe and solar system are not generally capped per NASA, but are per lots of WP editors. And Cuban missile crisis is way more often lowercase in sources until recent years, when it's likely influenced by WP's over-capitalization, where it's been capped since this undiscussed over-capping edit of 2003 that came with this counter-factual explanation; before my time. Still, is not yet approaching "consistently capitalized" in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course uppercase doesn't apply to perceptions (the sun rose), that's not the point here. The proper name of actual physical objects is where Wikipedia has it right and many sources inexplicably have it wrong (Scientific American for one). The nuclear furnace in the sky that fuels all life, Wikipedia says that it has a proper name. And the large rocky body circling the Earth (or would you argue that it is lowercased 'earth', and, if so, does not a planet itself deserve a proper name?), maybe that should have a proper name? Wikipedia gives it one, others don't. If you argue that Wikipedia should lowercase 'sun' as the star's proper name, or lowercase Solar System when referring to the specific solar system of Earth's nearest star, then there is something basically wrong with strict MOS language that would codify that viewpoint. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I would have thought the other way around – that "the Sun" is a proper name (when referring to the sun that is in our solar system), while "a sun" (among many suns) is a common noun. I'm tempted to say that NASA is an organization of scientists, bureaucrats and engineers – not linguists, but that would be a rude thing to say, so I will not say it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Brand names are not proper names (in general). A proper name refers to a single entity, but there can be many Cadillacs in a single parking lot, and Charmin, Palmolive, NyQuil, OxiClean and Oil of Olay are not even countable things, much less unique referents. Chevrolet may be a proper name when referring to a particular person or a division of a company, but not when referring to a type of automobile. Types of things and categories of things are common nouns, not proper nouns. Linguistically speaking, brand names are not proper names. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Nope, that's philosophically speaking, not linguistically speaking. You're confusing Proper name (linguistics) (i.e. Proper noun) with Proper name (philosophy). Cadillac and other trademarked brand names are proper names/nouns in linguistics terms.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Apparently that odd paragraph that Cinderella removed came in via a "merge" from a page that was "redundant, poorly maintained, and rarely cited", in this edit of 1 November 2018. It's time to "maintain" it into something more sensible and less conflicting, or remove it. There's no need to talk about conflict here, and no need for an alternate obscure buried subjective criterion to what we've always had in WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The present language seems fine, and at least the language should keep the concept of "most familiar name in English" in some form, as often most recognizable will not be consistently applied in sources but will be used by many sources in a recognizable way. No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater here, as your approach to the commonsense use of uppercase that Wikipedia uses for some proper names (Sun, Moon, Solar System, etc.) is concerning and is at least kept in check by language such as already present here. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

p.s. Dicklyon, you imply that this change removing "most familiar name" would enable a relook at the casing of Cuban Missile Crisis? This n-gram showing uppercasing by far the most familiar name for Cuban Missile Crisis would be tossed aside because it is not "consistent"? Keeping "most familiar name" in the language seems imperative when things like this arise. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"Most familiar" is just something to argue about. But if that's what was argued to keep Cuban Missile Crisis capped in spite of evidence that sources mostly don't, then maybe. I don't see how "Cuban missile crisis" can be seen as less familiar than "Cuban Missile Crisis"; it reads the same. Here is a better look at the 21st century trend to slightly more capitalization, much of which is actually in titles and citations, not in sentences; in sentences, which is what we care about, it's always less capping than what the ngram stats show (as you well know). It was unilaterally capped in 2003; we had a consensus to move to lowercase in 2012, and to move back up in 2015; so, sure time to look again maybe. Dicklyon (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Clarify: Are some of you suggesting that the page title Cuban Missile Crisis, be changed to Cuban missile crisis? GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It's an example of what excessive adherence to the word "consistently" would bring. N-grams show by far that the most familiar casing for Cuban Missile Crisis is uppercasing, but, since it's not 100% consistent Dicklyon would want to downcase it. The 2015 RM handled that, and no, "looking" at it again would not change the result (at a minimum it would be decided as no consensus and retain the status quo) but would only cost editors much time, slings and arrows, and whirlygigs of effort to play an old game which is still controversary played too much on Wikipedia. Removing language from this page which assures that the most familiar name in English deserves a role in deciding proper names will likely spill over into many areas to address or ignore past decisions such as Cuban Missile Crisis. Nothing is broken, so leaving the language on this page seems the best choice. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not a question of 100%; it's not even a majority of sources that cap Cuban Missile Crisis. The caps numbers crept up mainly from the many citations to titles with Cuban Missile Crisis, but still not to even two-thirds. Nothing close to "consistently". That's broken, but I realize a lot of editors prefer it that way, and it's a silly distraction to the issue here (it's the example from Proper noun#Modern English capitalization of proper nouns, and a topic that Randy and I have had spirited discussions on in the past, which is why he's provoking me about it). The language about familiarity is taken care of already by COMMONNAME (which is not about styling, just names). Here's a clearer view of usage stats, limited to probably a sentence context. Even if the very recent blip was real, it wouldn't suddenly have made the capped form more recognizable, and wouldn't explain why editors decided to cap it in 2003 and 2015. Dicklyon (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

What's interesting is the number of references that predate the crisis itself. What, I wonder, was the Cuban Missile Crisis being talked about in 1800? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

That's not really so interesting; they are very few, and such things are generally attributable to metadata errors, possibly from OCR errors, and/or from the smoothing; see hits through 1960. Dicklyon (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

This thread would appear to be misconstruing the reasonable meaning and intent of the phrase "most familiar" in the fuller context of what is actually written.

In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized. Such names are frequently a source of conflict, especially when different cultures, using different names, "claim" someone or something as their own. Wikipedia does not adjudicate such disputes, but as a general rule uses the name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English. Alternative names are often given in parentheses for greater clarity and fuller information. (emphasis added)

The text, read in its proper and full context is dealing with alternative names such as Mumbai and Bombay. It is clearly not dealing with differences in capitalisation such as Cuban missile crisis or Cuban Missile Crisis which are the same name but with different capitalisation. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Please read the first sentence of the paragraph. It, hence the paragraph, deals directly with the capitalization of proper names, which would include 'Cuban Missile Crisis'. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Well that's the point—asserting without evidence that Cuban missile crisis is a proper name doesn't make it so, with or without the sentence you point to. Wallnot (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized. Such [proper] names are frequently a source of conflict, especially when different cultures, using different [proper] names, "claim" someone or something as their own. Wikipedia does not adjudicate such disputes, but as a general rule uses the [proper] name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English. Alternative [proper] names are often given in parentheses for greater clarity and fuller information. The first sentence and the start of the second (Such names) establish that in the rest of the paragraph name is referring to a proper name (ie we are using a shortened form of the fuller noun phrase proper name). The first sentence acknowledges we capitalise proper names but does not intrinsically tell us anything else about proper names. In full, the paragraph is dealing with alternative proper names such as Mumbai and Bombay and not with whether something is or isn't a proper name - ie we must first determine if we are dealing with a proper name. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's be honest about this. It's gonna come down to an article-by-article basis. One RM at a time. No blanket rule. GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Or is it that our blanket rule is "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized"? To follow that rule requires data collection and human judgement, so it's a rule that requires discussion on an "article-by-article basis". SchreiberBike | ⌨  13:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

OP comment: This discussion has substantially diverged from the substantive question. Peter coxhead would suggest we (WP) determine what is a proper name by understanding Proper noun and the discussion of capitalization there. Reading proper noun, it tells us that proper names are not descriptive of the referent, they cannot normally be modified by articles or another determiner (except perhaps the) and, while they have a specific referent, this is not a defining property since the definite article (the) used with a common name also has a specific referent. Reading and understanding proper noun would cause us to downcase the titles of many articles. The proper name article then becomes a bit inconsistent and acknowledges the grey areas which are the crux of most capitalisation discussions. It is of little help in resolving these.

Per SchreiberBike, we rely on the guidance of the lead to determine what is "conventionally capitalised" - and thereby resolve these grey areas. Randy Kryn would opine that important things deserve a proper name. This is an argument of capitalisation for emphasis, distinction or significance and we have specific advice at MOS:SIGNIFCAPS not to do this. Sorry Randy :)

Regardless though, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proper names does not implore us to use and understand proper noun to determine what is or isn't a proper name. Rather, it speaks to determining the most appropriate name when there are alternative proper names. We have WP:COMMONNAME for this. There is then a question of whether demonyms (section on Peoples and their languages) really belongs as a subsection since proper name would clearly state that demonyms are not proper nouns|names (even if they are capitalised).

Substantive question: the substantive question is whether we should delete the section heading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proper names (and the paragraph immediately following) or not. If we did, the subsections therein would then move up a level. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, delete that paragraph that crept in from a merge of an unmaintained page. It just sows confusion. Dicklyon (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, and this should probably be a full RfC for such a major change. That language has been MOS language for a long time (not sure how long, but I've often used it in discussions), and changing it seems a site-wide topic. There are about half a dozen never-cappers who will discuss it, and hopefully much of the discussion will be on those very commonsense-filled words about the most familiar name in English. As for Cinderella157's assumptions about me, well, what I actually think is that important or not, things which are individual things, and so named as individual things, should be uppercased. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  By "never cappers" I assume you mean me and others who abide by the top-line message at MOS:CAPS: "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." I think "never cappers" is an unfair and biased way to refer to people who respect this longstanding consensus to not cap things not consistently capped in sources, a position that is only confused by the introduction of this alternative subjective criterion of "most familiar to readers". Dicklyon (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Randy, isn't that paragraph telling us (paraphrasing): if something has more than one proper name, we use the [proper] name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English? Isn't that very advice covered at WP:COMMONNAME and to some further degree at WP:UE and WP:USEENGLISH? How is the paragraph in question, when read in full, relevant to this particular page? Anybody can start an RfC if they wish. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Ping Randy Kryn, since you reverted the change here. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I reverted the removal of the portion in question because this discussion hasn't reached a consensus (and likely needs an RM). The main sentence for me is the most familiar name in English bit, which would include casing as well as proper name (see the discussion above about the titling of the Cuban Missile Crisis). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Randy Kryn, the discussion above went off on a tangent that is totally unrelated to the paragraph in question and what it is telling us. Rather than repeating what I have already said, please see my last post above the arbitrary break here which was a reply to you. The subject paragraph tells us how to choose between alternative proper names (eg Mumbai or Bombay). It tells us to use the alternative proper name which is most familiar to Anglophones. But that is what WP:COMMONNAME tells us. I cannot see how it can reasonably be construed otherwise (except by reading a part in isolation from the whole - but that would not be reasonable). It tells us nothing about how to determine what is a proper name. While it does tell us that we capitalise proper names, so does the lead of MOS:CAPS. Disputes over capitalisation are never about whether we should capitalise a proper name but whether a name is actually a proper name. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

No, not the same at all, Cinderella157 (and Fyunck(click)). WP:COMMONNAME says that the proper name needs a "significant majority" of sources, and some lowercase or uppercase advocates say that number has to be quite a high percentage - in other words the present COMMONNAME criteria sets a high bar, and that high bar has been used in RM discussions. Although the MOS page uses "consistently" it also contains the present language under discussion, which sets a lower and fairer bar, one I've often used in RM discussions (striking out wording not really needed in the quote): "In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized. Such names are frequently a source of conflict, especially when different cultures, using different names, "claim" someone or something as their own. Wikipedia does not adjudicate such disputes, but as a general rule uses the name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English." See, it doesn't say "significant majority", but the lower and commonsense bar of "the name which is likely to be the most familiar to readers of English". Big difference. A name shouldn't have an overwhelming majority to qualify as the common name, but one that's just the most recognizable by readers. Cuban Missile Crisis, uppercased, exists as more recognizable than Cuban missile crisis, yet in this discussion alone there have been statements that that page should again be lowercased. Retaining the "most familiar to readers of English" language acts to augment and protect the present title of that page and others like it, so keeping it seems essential to tone-down and clarify the definition of the "significant majority" wording of WP:COMMONNAME and "consistently" of MOS. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, the second sentence of the paragraph here states: Such names .... By this, it refers back to the first sentence. This is explicitly saying that "names" , in this context, means "proper names" - ie Such [proper] names ... It is using "name" as a shortened form of the fuller term, proper name. Where the paragraph continues (... the name which is ...) it is still explicitly using "name" to mean "proper name" (ie ... the [proper] name which is ...) since the text has not told us that there is a change to "name" being used as a shortened form of the fuller term, "proper name". The subject paragraph therefore tells us how to choose between alternative proper names (eg Mumbai or Bombay). Where you would strike, especially when different cultures, using different names, "claim" someone or something as their own, this is context that helps explain the type of "dispute" that the subject paragraph would address. Despite what you assert, it tells us nothing about a choice of capitalisation. Consequently, it really has no place at MOS:CAPS, which is about determining what should or should not be capitalised. WP:COMMONNAME is part of WP:AT. It too is about choices between alternative names (eg Mumbai v Bombay or leopard seal v sea leopard). WP:COMMONNAME does not address capitalisation of a name; this is addressed in a separate section of WP:AT at WP:TITLEFORMAT. It would be spurious to suggest that WP:COMMONNAME addresses the matter of capitalisation. While WP:COMMONNAME does state: ... as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources ..., it continues: When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources ... Where the subject paragraph here states: ... uses the name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English. If one acknowledges that the name most familiar to readers of English is the name most frequently used in English language sources, there is no substantive difference between the advice at WP:COMMONNAME and the advice of the subject paragraph. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Do it up, the way you all think is best. I'm just no longer interested in debating Manuals of Style, these days. GoodDay (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - This does sound like an end-around by the never-cappers. This would be a huge deal that would require a full RfC. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  Please do not bring a battle-ground attitude and fight-picking namecalling to these discussions. You know better.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  As I just posted above, isn't this paragraph telling us: "if something has more than one proper name, we use the [proper] name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English?" and that this is covered by WP:COMMONNAME. Why then do you see this as being a huge deal? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  No, it is not the same as WP:COMMONNAME language, by far. What WP:COMMONNAME are you reading? See my reply to you just above. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Hi Randy Kryn, I have replied to you above. I am reading WP:COMMONNAME the same as you. I am seeing that the language there is in essence much the same as in the subject paragraph when read in full. I cannot see how the paragraph here or at WP:COMMONNAME has any applicability in determining capitalisation. Are you seeing something that I am missing? Cinderella157 (talk) 07:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment As an alternative, why not split it off into its own page, i.e., revert the merge between the separate proper names page and CAPS, so we retain the guidance but still help clarify the guideline? Wallnot (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  Because it was merged out of existence as a separate page for good reason. There's nothing about such a merge process, however, to suggest that every single segment in both (or more) original pages must be preserved in the merged result, especially after later discussion shows something lacking about a particular segment.

  However, I've re-read the material, and it's quick to go through: "In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized." This is true, and it makes sense to say so, and in particular to link to Proper noun AKA Proper name (linguistics), in distinction from Proper name (philosophy), the latter concept being the source of the vast majority of confusion people bring to RM discussions claiming that various descriptive phrases are proper names when they are not, linguistically speaking (which is the only rubric by which they have any connection to capitalization). Next: "Such names are frequently a source of conflict, especially when different cultures, using different names, "claim" someone or something as their own." This is true. We are subtly reminding people not to editwar and bring PoV concerns to bear on name-capitalization disputes, and if anything we should be doing that more explictly. Last: "Wikipedia does not adjudicate such disputes, but as a general rule uses the name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English. Alternative names are often given in parentheses for greater clarity and fuller information." This is both correct and instructive, and consistent with but not duplicative of WP:COMMONNAME, which only addresses the article title; MoS is about what to do after the article title. This material is then followed by explicit citation to article title policy and naming-convention guidelines when it comes to titles. No problem there; we should be cross-referencing between related guidance.

  So, the deletion rationale here simply makes no sense to me, and I therefore oppose deletion unless some much clearer rationale for it is provided, at which point I might reconsider. The material has had consensus for many years; it's just not always lived at the same page address. To the [very great] extent that we have problems at RM with people claiming things are proper names when they clearly are not, that problem is not caused or exacerbated by this section, though the section may be the place to introduce new wording to address that problem (and it will need a cross-reference especially to MOS:SIGCAPS).
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Consider me a consistency capper ;) Whatever yas decide, please apply it as consistently across as many articles, as possible. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Links

I do think there needs to be a section about link capitalization here. I can add it, but… any input? 21:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac Henni (talk • contribs)

The text in a link should not be done any differently if it's a link or not. Might be worth stating if we haven't already. The non-case-sensitivity of initial letters of titles, plus the use of sentence-case titles, makes this work easily. Dicklyon (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The NYT style guide capitalizes "Marine"

Per here. - wolf 23:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

See WP:MARINE. Wallnot (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Saw it. That's why I posted this here. It appears that other sources, besides the CMoS, state that "Marine", (as is U.S. Marine) should be capitalized. - wolf 21:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, some sources capitalize the term and Wikipedia doesn't (under most circumstances). (I personally haven't seen what is at that NYT link, due to its paywall.) See also the previous fairly recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 34#Capitalize Marine when referring to an individual servicemember. Generally, Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. I think it would be capitalized (per MOS:JOBTITLES) when it prefixes a name – e.g. "U.S. Marine John W. Swift said ..." But, as noted at WP:MARINE, we would not use "John Doe is a Marine". We would also capitalize it in the name of an organization – e.g. "The Corps of Royal Marines (RM), also known as the Royal Marines Commandos, are the UK's ..." —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a lost cause to get ppl on here to change WP's MOS on Marine capitalization. A simple Google search shows a plethora of examples of Marine being capitalized in multiple professional style guides. The naysayers' main argument is, it is a "conceit." Conceit or not is irrelevant. The primary reason most professional style guides capitalize Marine is has actual utility: to differentiate the noun (Marine - servicemember) from the adjective (marine - of, found in, or produced by the sea). Also, it is proper English. I digress. It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 13:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

So, under that reasoning, all nouns that also have an identical adjectival form should be capitalised to show they're nouns?! A Vegetarian as against vegetarian, maybe! And you say "it is proper English"! No, it isn't. It is, as has been pointed out numerous times, a military conceit, just as capitalising ranks (and pretty much everything else, as the military tends to do) is. I speak as ex-military, incidentally, not as any kind of opponent. I know what they're like! There is no more reason to capitalise marine in English than there is is to capitalise soldier, sailor or airman. Many would like to capitalise all of these, as well as, for instance, Police Officer, as though they have some difference from other occupations. In the English language, they simply don't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Your argument is what's known as a "faulty analogy fallacy." Anyway, relax your panties. As I said, it's not gonna happen, anyway. You can rest easy knowing that you won't have to see Marine capitalized. Except here. In my statement. Where Marine is capitalized. (I'm just kidding. Really though, you should lighten up a bit; it's not that serious). It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 14:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how it's a fallacy in any way. Marines are called marines because they're... marine (i.e. "of, found in, or produced by the sea", as you say)! No, it's not that serious, which is why I'm sick of having to revert it in articles by editors (usually new) who come along and claim it's correct English! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

You have two options: 1) Accept that in American English, "Marine" is capitalized (and we all know where you stand on that). 2) Unless you can get the US military to change its MOS, and convince unknown countless reporting agencies who do consider Marine a proper noun to not capitalize Marine, then I would suggest you're just going to have to accept that you will keep having the same argument until the end of time. As an admin, the MOS for WP is clear when it comes to capitalizing Marine, so you should enforce the lower-case "m" rule. However, also as an admin, you have to understand that it is not uncommon in American English to capitalize Marine, so I would caution against getting emotionally involved in disputes like you have here. If When it comes up again, just understand that it is written like that in some English-speaking countries, but not on WP. Then direct them to MOS:MARINE. Cheers! It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 15:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

It's also not uncommon in British English to capitalise Marine (or Lieutenant or Sergeant or any other military term). That doesn't mean Wikipedia does it or correct English does it. This military over-capitalisation is not restricted to American English and the editors who oppose it are not restricted to non-Americans (or to those who are anti-military). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I've corrected it with the edit summary "See MOS:MARINE" and usually that takes care of it. Lots of people get it wrong, but we make it right. SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Treating "marine" as special could produce phrases like ""At the dinner event there were three sailors and two Marines." That would be rather odd. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The NYT style guide is divergent even from other US news style guides, and is not evidentiary of anything other than that publication's editors' personal preferences. Literally nothing (zero) in MoS is taken from the NYT style guide (or ever will be, probably).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a pretty interesting article, though, about the process of having and changing one's own style guide. Dicklyon (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, news-outlet style guides are not usually of high quality. And employers/publicists/advertisers are guilty of mass boosterism when it comes to occupation names. "Marines" capped would be a slippery slope down to the city's Garbage Collectors. You really want that? Tony (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Article title capitalization section?

I would like to have clear consensus on how article titles should be added in ```cite``` templates. Currently, there is no explicit guideline, which I think should change. Any input would be appreciated. 21:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac Henni (talk • contribs)

MOS:TITLECAPS seems to cover the matter. Is there any case you've run into that's not treated there? (And please sign your posts with four, rather than five, tildes so that people will know who you are.) Deor (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm mostly talking about _external_ articles, ie, articles in refs. Maccore Henni user talk Respond using tb, please. 17:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

There should not be an explicit guideline. The capitalization of titles in citations should be consistent within a single individual Wikipedia article, but WP:CITEVAR is clear that consistency of citation style cannot be expected from one article to the next. The capitalization style that I prefer is: Sentence case (only the first word and proper nouns capitalized) for titles of journal papers, conference proceedings papers, chapters and sections within books, but title case (all significant words capitalized) for titles of books, journals, and book series. Variations from this style are common; I have frequently seen title case for individual journal and conference articles, or occasionally instead sentence case for book titles. The language of the title may also make a difference; often one sees foreign-language titles capitalized according to the conventions of their own language instead of English. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and I also prefer sentence case for articles and title case for books. I often see refs where all-caps headlines are copied that way, and that's really not OK. I convert them to sentence case or title case when I see them. Dicklyon (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

My personal tendency for citations is to use the capitalization that was used by the cited source, unless it's all-caps. I reduce all-caps, but am not especially consistent about whether I convert it to sentence case or title case. For promotional prefixes and suffixes that are not really part of the cited title, like "EXCLUSIVE:" or "WATCH VIDEO:", I sometimes just delete them and sometimes I reduce the case. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Broken shortcuts: MOS:DEGREE, MOS:DEGREES

MOS:DEGREE and MOS:DEGREES both point to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Academic degrees. However, that subsection/anchor no longer exists (I personally was trying to end up at MOS:UNITSYMBOLS for the temperature symbol). Opencooper (talk) 06:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Opencooper They should be retargeted to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Academic titles and degrees. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Chris the speller and Sdkb. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Retargeted them to where Ahecht pointed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Midsentence capitalization of the

The following discussion 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.

---

@FyzixFighter: Our general rule is that "the word the at the start of a name is uncapitalized, regardless of the institution's own usage". It seems that this rule is not generally followed for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I've found no specific mention of an exception to our usual rule at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints, but that page consistently capitalizes The midsentence. Also, I see that The is almost always capitalized on Wikipedia in text and titles about the LDS Church, e.g. History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Should the LDS Church be an exception? Are there any other exceptions? Thank you, SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

There is some guidance about it at MOS:THECAPS, MOS:THEINST and at the top of WP:THE. For the LDS [C/c]hurch, I think we would look for what is done in independent reliable sources. Also see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 2#the church vs. the Church. I also suspect reviewing the Talk pages of those articles would turn up some discussion of the question. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't noticed this thread and started another at WT:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints, where it says to cap "The" in article names, but doesn't say anything about otherwise. This is bizarre, as we never have different rules for article names than in sentences, except for the first letter (sentence case, you know). As for capping, some sources like the NYTimes consistently use lowercase, so there's no reason we can't follow our own style and do the same. See NYTimes search. Dicklyon (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Except that we do have a handful of articles that are an exception to this rule, such as The Hague, The Citadel, History of The Citadel, List of assets owned by The New York Times Company, List of assets owned by The Walt Disney Company, Timeline of The Walt Disney Company, and so forth. The exceptions occur for article titles when "The" is deemed as part of the proper name of the entity. As for capping, some sources like the Associated Press (see APNews search and the AP stylebook announcement a few years ago) or the Salt Lake Tribune (see SLTrib search) do treat "The" as part of the proper name of the Church. I find the SLTrib pattern significant because it is a large newspaper that deals with the topic on a frequent basis and is anything but biased in favor of the Church. Exceptions can and do exist on Wikipedia when it comes to proper names in article titles, all style guides conflict on some points, and there are journalistic sources that use this style. The current wording of MOS:LDS supports this style for article titles which, depending on how you interpret WP:NCCAPS and MOS:TITLECAPS if, as in the previous examples, "The" is considered as part of the proper name. If this can be extended to sentences in the body of articles, imo, is a separate question and one which I now find myself on the fence about. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

None of these are differences between use in titles and in sentences; or if they are they are mistakes. As for The Hague, that's capped in 75% or more of uses in sources, as a translation of the proper name of the city. The New York Times and The Walt Disney Company on the other hand are only 50% capped in sources, and much more often lowercase in sentence context, so we should fix those with capped "The" in non-initial position. Dicklyon (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Proposal1 – Pending decision on what to do about "The" LDS Church, I propose we at least remove the inconsistent advise in MOS:LDS, something like my edit that was reverted here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support I don't see why this should be an exception to our MOS and as observed per NYC, we would not be alone. I looked back through the archive at WT:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints. The church has chosen in relatively recent times to capitalise the to emphasise that it is the church of Jesus Christ. This would fall to MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. There is also the claim in some discussions that the is part of the proper name and should be capitalised accordingly (as part of the proper name). This argument lacks credibility, since we don't capitalise similar situations for institutions in which the is part of the name. Other arguments are to "official name" but again, this then goes back to other similar cases and that we wouldn't see this as an exception to our guidance. I would see that this will require an RfC and probably at a prominent place - VPP? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

With respect to the proper name argument - this was the significant thread through arguments regarding whether or not to move The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (see here and here). If this isn't part of the proper name of the church and is insignificant, what is stopping that move from taking place? In about a couple of hours, I've been able to identify at least two dozen examples of this pattern being used on long-standing articles for other similar proper names. I do think an RFC would be advisable - MOS:LDS is still very much an active MOS and none of the other editors besides myself that regularly contribute to that MOS or other related discussions. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• • Support per Cinderella. This would be a slippery slope to capping "the" in thousands of cases. It's disruptive to the eyes in mid-sentence. Tony (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. I would agree with Cinderella as well.
  • Support: I've heard no explanation of why this institution should be an exception that is consistent with Wikipedia style. The only exception I'm aware of is The Hague. SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Need an RFC? – Per this revert, at least one editor thinks the clear consensus here is not formal enough for such a change? Should we do an RFC and wait a month? Dicklyon (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: SchreiberBike said what I would have. Given the existing MOS guidance and the (early) consensus here, I'd suggest waiting another few days and then enacting this proposal again. If there's just one dissenter, they should accept consensus or start their own RfC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per what my reasoning at WT:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: WP:NCCAPS allows for the capitalization of second or subsequent words in an article for multiword page titles if the title phrase is a proper name. Similarly, according to MOS:TITLECAPS, proper names in article titles to be capitalized. While MOS:INSTITUTIONS is helpful, WP:NCCAPS is the style guideline on capitalization in article titles, and therefore is the more complete relevant guidance. (I would argue this is similar to MOS:HON and MOS:SAINTS - the former is for article text and says to avoid honorifics related to sainthood, while the latter gives similar guidance for article titles but more completely explains possible exceptions.)

If we look at style patterns in journalistic reliable sources, the Associated Press (see APNews search and the AP stylebook announcement a few years ago) and the Salt Lake Tribune (see SLTrib search) do treat "The" as part of the proper name of the Church and usually capitalize it. I find the SLTrib pattern significant because it is a large newspaper that deals with the topic on a frequent basis (and therefore has had to ensure a consistent and cogent style on the matter) and is anything but biased in favor of the Church.

Exceptions can and do exist on Wikipedia. The naming convention and MOS guidelines, per the box at the top of each, admit that occasional exceptions may apply. This is not a carve out of an exception for a singular article - this is applying caveats for exceptions already built into existing article title naming conventions. As "The" is part of the proper name of the Church, then "The" can be consistent with NCCAPS and TITLECAPS given the caveats for proper names. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter: You and others point out that "'The' is part of the proper name of the Church", and that is correct, but our rule at MOS:THEINST is specifically for when The is part of a proper name. No one would capitalize the before a common name or capitalize the when it is not part of an institution's name.

The only exception I am aware of today is The Hague, but there are probably others I don't know of. The others which have been pointed out are errors which need fixing. Most fixes happen without fuss, but people have strong feelings about things like the LDS Church, Disney and the Citadel, so usually I make the correction and if someone changes it back I let it slide, but this one has come up many times so I brought it here. SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• • Oppose:As the word "The" is part of the proper name The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints per a variety of third-party sources already mentioned by @FyzixFighter, it should be capitalized per WP:NCCAPS ("For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence.") Examples of this on Wiki[pedia are The New York Times and The Home Depot, where a capitalized The is included in both the title and mid-sentence throughout the articles. Bahooka (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bahooka: I note that WP:NCCAPS is specifically about naming conventions for article titles rather than in text and says "lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence." So the important question is how to capitalize mid-sentence. Then we follow MOS:THEINST which says "the word the at the start of a name is uncapitalized, regardless of the institution's own usage".

The example of The New York Times is different because that is the name of a creative work and italicized. We use the full name of a newspaper the same way we would of a book or painting. I see that in some uses on the New York Times's page there are errors such as where it says "The paper is owned by The New York Times Company" but errors in Wikipedia can't be used as examples of how to do things right. I'm sure among our 6,923,947 articles, there are many examples like The Home Depot and The Citadel which are wrong, but there are many examples which are right and we have a guideline which should apply to all institutions equally. SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• • Oppose for article titles. In my mind, the uppercase The and the lowercase d are important in differentiating the Utah-based church from similarly named entities like Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite), Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Gladdenite), and Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) (the common ancestor to all latter-day-saint churches, whose name was changed to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 1838). These things don't mean much to ordinary readers, but it's something we should think about when writing a style guide. Speaking of which, we should definitely give some weight to the styleguides of 3rd party sources. As of the last major styleguide update in 2019, it looks like the AP and the Salt Lake Tribune both use uppercase The. link (see the tweet). The NYTimes (based on the Google search linked by User:Dicklyon) seems to favor lowercase, but is inconsistent. (See [3] where the is lowercase in the caption but uppercase in the body.) But I would give more weight to the AP (more universal) and the SLTrib (more specific experience with Mormonism, but not affiliated with the church) than the NYTimes. ~Awilley (talk) 02:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

    Agree, see also here. Also the AP StyleGuide capitalizes it for what it's worth... Rogerdpack (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  Support. Let's use a consistent and logical approach. Popcornfud (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• Proposal2 – State explicity at MOS:LDS that the Church of... is not an exception and should use lowercase the when not in a sentence-initial or equivalent context. Dicklyon (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support this also. It could simply be included as a bulleted example; we need not devote a full sentence to it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: it would just make it clear that there is no exception for this institution to our general rule for institutions. SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

    Where does one go to "request an exception"? I'd like to try. Cheers! Rogerdpack (talk) 06:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Weak support. I'm conflicted, as I'd rather not lengthen the guideline. That said, a non-state organization example wouldn't be the worst thing to have here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Though perhaps just as a footnote since people often take silence on a particular issue as tacit consent. Some comments here may not realise where MOS:LDS is and that it is a stand-alone guideline. However, it might be a first step to making the case of LDS explicit in the guidance here. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

    I think it's a subsidiary to the MOS, not a "standalone" guideline, and as such might as well be pretty explicit there, not at MOS:CAPS itself. Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Support per what my reasoning at WT:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support if this is meant only for in article text, Oppose if it applies to article titles as the current MOS:LDS wording only applies to article titles and for the reasons for opposing Proposal 1 above. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose:Same as for Proposal1. As the word "The" is part of the proper name The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints per a variety of third-party sources already mentioned by @FyzixFighter, it should be capitalized per WP:NCCAPS ("For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence.") Examples of this on Wiki[pedia are The New York Times and The Home Depot, where a capitalized The is included in both the title and mid-sentence throughout the articles. Bahooka (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose:Same as for Proposal1, for the reasons noted by FyzixFighter and Bahooka. Have long-relied on WP:THE in this instance, which may have felt overly-simple, but support the reasons given by the these two editors noted and associated examples....also agree with editors, such as Awilley, who referenced the Salt Lake Tribune's (very independent of the church) use of "The." ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose:Same as for Proposal1 Awilley, and my own comment there. Rogerdpack (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: I've been thinking about this over the past day and looking at how other organizations whose name begins with The are handled. I also realized that often the full name of the church (for obvious reasons) is often used only once in many articles. (After that it's abbreviated to LDS Church or the church—see the Featured Article Mitt Romney for an example of how that looks.) So it makes sense to also think about what that wikilink should look like. Here's a table illustrating my reactions to various formulations:

Running prose

A1	...was an employee of The Hershey Company	...was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints	?
A2	...was an employee of the Hershey Company	...was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints	?
A3	...was an employee of the Hershey Company	...was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints	Y
A4	...was an employee of The Hershey Company	...was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints	N
A5	...was an employee of the Hershey Company	...was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints	?
A6	...the Pennsylvania-based Hershey Company	...the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints	Y

Infobox or similar

B1	Produced by: The Hershey Company	Denomination: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints	Y
B2	Produced by: the Hershey Company	Denomination: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints	N

Article titles

C1

List of products manufactured by The Hershey Company

List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Y

I'm torn on A1 vs. A2 as a lot of it comes down to the context. The capital The emphasizes the official name of the organization which could be distracting in many contexts but still appropriate in constructions like, "In 2016, barkTHINS was acquired by The Hershey Company." It subtly tells me that is the full name of the company, which I find helpful. If it's not wikilinked I definitely prefer lowercase (A3 instead of A4). For article titles and infoboxes, I think the capital The is still appropriate.

Whether this is important enough to make a hard rule about, I don't know. I think I'd prefer to leave enough room to put a capital T in where it seems appropriate, especially if it's wikilinked. ~Awilley (talk) 06:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree on most of those. We conventionally use sentence case for infobox items (even though we discourage capitalization after a colon in prose). But I don't agree on C1, which would be a special capitalization rule for titles that's different from sentence case. That's what this section is all about. We've never had such a thing in our guidelines (with the exception of the obscure MOS:LDS clause that brought this up). And not A1, since we explicitly do not cap for emphasis, which is what you propose here. Another case of interest is The New York Times, which I think should be capped when italicized, i.e. in title case when referring to the major work, but not when talking about the New York Times as an organization, which is more parallel to the Hershey Company. Dicklyon (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Awilley: Those tables are helpful and I agree with most of your ticks. I think A2 and A5 are also fine, but not A1. I disagree with C1 for both the Hershey Company and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I think that style does make it more clear that the name of the organization includes the, but I don't think it's worth the jarring mid-sentence The or many opportunities for confusion. SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Reflexively, I dislike A2 with its transition from black to blue despite continuing with lowercase for "the". I prefer A5 over that. I'm not sure about A1 (I think I would generally prefer A5 over A1, although it might depend on what independent reliable sources do). I'm not fond of C1. Endorsing C1 would be inconsistent with endorsing A3 over A4. There should be a corresponding second variation described for article titles. Actually, article titles should just be the same as running prose. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

"transition from black to blue despite continuing with lowercase for 'the'" Exactly. Thank you for articulating that better than I did. ~Awilley (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• Note re MOS:TMTHE and Ngram: I just noticed that MOS:TMTHE concurs with MOS:THEINST and goes into some detail about exceptions. I don't think anyone in this discussion so far has pointed out MOS:TMTHE. The church in question does not clearly fall into the provided list of exceptions, unless it can be shown that its name is "consistently treated this way in most reliable sources". This Ngram appears to show the lowercase "the" being more popular. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Do we need a formal RfC?

The proposals above are support:oppose 7:3 and 6:2. Is that sufficient or do we need a formal RfC? If we decide it's necessary, I'm willing to coordinate the development of the request or someone else could. I hope we can all work on a proposal together so that it will be clear and fair.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter, BarrelProof, Dicklyon, Cinderella157, Tony1, Firefangledfeathers, InfiniteNexus, Bahooka, Awilley, SMcCandlish, and ChristensenMJ: If there's no need for an RfC, can we say this has been resolved? That would mean the changes proposed above would be enacted and we can start making the changes to article titles and text to remove mid-sentence capitalization of The. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

This already effectively is an RfC, just without an RfC tag. Why not add an RfC tag to it? We need not restart from scratch.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

That won't work. RFCs have to satisfy WP:RFCBRIEF, and the questions above do not. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Just put an RFC tag on the current overall discussion. GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Just call it done. 7:3 and 6:2 are clear enough. Dicklyon (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints is inconsistent with MOS:CAPS despite (IMO) reasonably clear guidance here and some novel arguments have been made herein as to why LDS is an exception. I am of the feeling that some editors at LDS may not be willing to accept the broader community consensus established here unless there is a degree of formality (WP:NOTGETTINGIT). At the least, I would suggest an independent close at WP:CR. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow, this is still going? Personally I don't understand why some editors don't seem to understand MOS:THEINST, but if need be, sure we can open an RfC. Though the question should probably be more direct and broader than the ones above, i.e. something like Considering MOS:THEINST, MOS:THECAPS, and WP:NCCAPS, should the word "the" in "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" be capitalized when appearing in the middle of article titles? InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that an RfC shouldn't be necessary, but I agree with @Cinderella157 that there will be some opposition to this. I think we need to do it formally and that the RfC should be as fair and clear as possible. I'm drafting an RfC at User:SchreiberBike/Workspace/Mid-sentence and mid-article title capitalization of the in the full name of the LDS Church. Please contribute there. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I've said my piece above based on what I personally have seen in the sources. If I failed to convince anybody then I won't stand in the way of whatever consensus you find. ~Awilley (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike: I would add the guidelines I referenced above to the RfC question (maybe not the question itself, but below the question next to the examples), i.e. MOS:THEINST, MOS:THECAPS, and WP:NCCAPS. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: See the RfC below at #RfC on mid-sentence and mid-article title capitalization of the in the full name of the LDS Church. I tried to pose the question clearly and fairly in the RfC question without including any arguments. Others have mentioned the guidelines you reference above in their explanations for their !vote, so I think it's covered, but your recommendation would be appreciated there. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨  12:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh my bad, I just stopped by to check on this section, so I didn't notice that the RfC had already started below. I'll add my !vote momentarily. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2022 (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 in section headers that start with numbers

There was one discussion on this page a year ago which was continued at MOS:BLP. The second discussion, to quote User:EEng, "collapsed under its own weight" and died out without any resolution. I would like to revive this since it is a source of ongoing disagreement. As it is not specific to BLPs, I am doing so here this time.

The issue is, should section headers be

• hypothetical:
  • (A1) 2018 Elections vs. (A2) 2018 elections
  • (B1) 2018 and 2019 Elections vs. (B2) 2018 and 2019 elections
  • (C1) Postwar period: Educator vs. (C2) Postwar period: educator
  • (D1) 2021–present: Educator vs. (D2) 2021–present: educator
  • (E1) 2021: Educator vs. (E2) 2021: educator
• actual articles
  • (F1) 1891–1940: Early history vs (F2) 1891–1940: early history from Glycine (watch)
  • (G1) 2005–2007: Career beginnings vs (G2) 2005–2007: career beginnings from Lady Gaga
  • (H1) 2003–2007: Production work, Encore and musical hiatus vs (H2) 2003–2007: production work, Encore and musical hiatus from Eminem

Although this is generalized to numbers, in reality it seems to apply mostly or perhaps exclusively to years.

One example without a number (year) is included because MOS:COLON is in play here, which says to use lower case following the colon unless what follows is a complete sentence. So per that guideline, most of the above should be lower case (C2-G2). That is unless someone has a reason that MOS:COLON does not apply to section headers. The other even more relevant guidelines are MOS:HEADINGS which says that section headings should use sentence case and MOS:SECTIONCAPS which says sentence case means Capitalize the first letter of the first word. This seems to be the source of the inconsistency. Some people interpret that literally and conclude the year is a number, not a word. Others read into that somehow that the year (or year range) is an "introductory clause" and "not part of the actual sentence" - sentence case begins after that. Other have just said that capitalizing the non-numeric element "looks better".

I see these options:

1. always lower case. Update MOS:SECTIONCAPS to say Capitalize the first character of the first element if it is a letter (A2-H2)
2. sentence case starts after introductory clause preceding a colon (C1-H1), otherwise #1 (A2-B2)
3. avoid the construct if at all possible, e.g (F3) Early history (1891-1940): or Early history, 1891-1940:

There are certainly examples of #3 - see Atari and George Clooney. But there are cases where doing that would be unnatural like in Clayton Kershaw. Even if we were to say #3 is preferred, we still need to decide what to do in the other cases and pick a second choice (#1 or #2).

Note: I have left out any choice that leaves A1 & B1 since it seems clear that without a colon, section headers follow article titles and there is no exception in titles when the first "word" is a year. Also, option #2 treats post-colon capitalization uniformly; there could be a case for making that dependent on whether the "introductory clause" was numeric or not (C2 & D1/E1). For simplicity, that can be follow-up discussion that would not be necessary if an consensus emerges for option #1. MB 17:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 (lower case). This will be in agreement with pretty much every other style guide ever. Likewise, if you start a sentence with a trademark that doesn't begin with an upper-case letter (iPhone sales have grown by X% since ..., and 3M was founded in ...), we don't use mid-sentence "weirdo" capitalization (iPhone Sales have ..., 3M Was founded ...). It's near-amazing to me that two previous discussions have not come to an iron-clad consensus about this already. PS: Option 3 might verge on instruction creep, but in the end I would not object to Option 3 then Option 1.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 per SMcCandlish. I usually do edit things in that direction when I see them (per existing guidelines), and haven't had any pushback. Dicklyon (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 per SMcCandlish. Per WP:SENTENCECASE, if it's not to be capitalized in running text, it shouldn't be capitalized in a section heading. —El Millo (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 and Option 3 Allow, and even suggest, the possibility of rephrasing to avoid starting with a numeral, but if the header does start with a numeral, then the guidance of option 1 should be followed. I would say something like "If possible, one may rephrase the header title to avoid starting with a numeral, but for any header title that does start with a numeral, all non-proper words should be lowercase." or something along those lines.

  Starting headings with year ranges is widespread. Do you really want to discourage that, or suggest changing it? Dicklyon (talk) 06:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  Neither. I want to offer options. --Jayron32 16:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1. A numeral at the beginning of a heading is functionally a word itself, so a following word should be lowercase (unless it's a proper noun). Deor (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1: Starting with a number is often helpful, but we should continue to follow our long established practice of having headings in sentence case. 2008 is as much a word as is two thousand eight. SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 with a less “if at all possible” version of option 3. Maybe I’m alone, but I read a colon as indicating a subtitle of sorts. And a subtitle should start its own sentence. At least that’s how I would write my style guide… if I had one. No disagreement from me about numerals as first characters though (if only we did have that full upper case… imagine it: 2009). — HTGS (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2. Both AP and APA Style state one should capitalize the first word after a colon when using sentence case in a heading. This rule applies even if words, not numbers, precede the colon. Perhaps a more simple solution is to look at examples of articles in sentence case. Here are some quick examples, just glancing at the news:
  • 2022: Ranking the top 20 NBA players right now
  • Puerto Rico: A massive energy transformation is within reach
  • Train strikes: What are the dates and which lines are affected?
  • Russia-Ukraine live updates: Officials think Russia plotting withdrawal from Kherson
  • Twitter’s blue check: Vital verification or status symbol?
  • Grit, dark humor and iodide pills: How Ukrainians are facing a nuclear threat
  • Elections 2022 live updates: Midterms loom as candidates ready final push
  • Stop hurting your own feelings: Tips on quashing negative self-talk
  • ‘People are fearful’: Threats to midterm election workers spur law enforcement response across U.S.
  • To the sea: The final journey of a victim of Thailand’s nursery massacre
  • 13 best wireless headphones 2022: Lose yourself in the music with a top-rated pair of noise-cancelling cans
  • Details emerge in Paul Pelosi attack: A break-in, conversation, 911 call, then violence
  • World history: These are among the most important global events to happen annually since 1920
  • Opinion: The US must free itself of political delusions about the border
  • Amazon: Coming soon to your eyeballs
  • OTS Property income review: Simplifying income tax for residential landlords

As evidenced above, the WP:RSP that format their titles in sentence-case and capitalize the next word after the introductory colon include BBC, ABC News, AP News, LA Times, NPR, Politico, Reuters, The Independent, USA Today, CNN, and TechCrunch, as well as a UK government site that popped up on my search.

• The only WP:RSP sources I could find that do NOT capitalize the first word after the introductory colon are The Guardian and The Times:
  • ‘We’re watching you’: incidents of voter intimidation rise as midterm elections near
  • Liquid gold: why Cognac is best in autumn

It would be best if Wikipedia follows the majority of reliable sources in capitalizing the first word after a colon in a heading, which is typically what is done when determining WP:MOS. –spongeworthy93(talk) 19:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

What you are looking at are article titles, and MOS:TITLES has us handle them the same way. What is under discussion here are headings inside articles; not the same thing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 We only capitalise the first letter of the first word when using sentence case. I see no reason not to treat an initial number as the first word. At MOS:NUMNOTES, we already have advice to avoid starting a sentence with a figure. This reasonably extends to other uses of sentence case. It also gives examples of sentences beginning with a number, thereby illustrating how such a sentence would be capitalise - noting that the word after the initial number is not capitalised. As to comments here about capitalising after a colon, we also have specific advice on this at MOS:COLON: When what follows the colon is also a complete sentence, start it with a capital letter, but otherwise, do not capitalize after a colon except where doing so is needed for another reason, as for a proper name. Headings are not complete sentences; therefore, the advice is clearly no. Changing the advice here would create an inconsistency with WP:MOS and this is not the place for a discussion that would make such a change. As to any specific change to our guidance, I think we should reserve that matter until we have a consensus on the principle to be applied. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

OSU for MOS:THEINST

Does anyone happen to know how the Ohio State University example got into MOS:THEINST? I wonder whether that is really appropriate. Why say "researchers at the Ohio State University" instead of "researchers at Ohio State University"? Is our MoS inadvertently implying that "the" should be included when referring to that institution? The article title doesn't have "the". People generally don't say "the Indiana University", "the Colorado State University", "the Texas Christian University" or "the Western Kentucky University". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

BarrelProof, as you point out, the is usually optional in prose when written as X University; however, the official name is The Ohio State University - though this doesn't appear to be the case for the other universities you cite. When the construction of the name is University of X it is more common to refer to it as the University of X. For example, the University of Queensland is established by statute with that official name and the is also capitalised in the statute. Griffith University (also in Brisbane) is also established by statute which refers to it as the Griffith University but the is not explicitly capitalised in the statute and it does not refer to itself with the. More directly to your question, the Ohio State University is a valid example; however, because the is optional in prose and often omitted, there are probably better examples. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Ohio State has made a huge fuss of insisting that they use the the [4]. I think it's reasonable to go along with their preferred form of address, in formal writing (this comment is not formal writing). I draw the line at capitalization, though: the the should be lowercase unless at the start of a sentence. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. The fact that they make a huge fuss over it is part of why we shouldn't endorse their silly posturing in our MOS. This is a bad example to put in our MOS, since it implicitly endorses a controversial and promotional phrasing. If you ask someone which university they are enrolled in, no one would reply "The Ohio State University". If they do, they should be promptly slapped with a wet trout. I love it that the headline of the above-referenced NPR article does not include the word "The". Please note that at the moment, I'm not talking about what the Ohio State University article should say (an article that does not include "The" in its title). I'm talking about what the MOS should say. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Last week I went thruogh and downcased a bunch of those The, where in many cases it would have been better to just take them out. Maybe I'll take another pass at it. Dicklyon (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I would just remove it in most cases. There are probably some constructions where "the" reads better, but in most cases it's just a useless additional word.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The change was made by User:Ground Zero in August 2015 after discussion WT:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 19#Moving along. It previously said to go with the institution's preference, which came into MOSCAPS in 2012 here, apparently copying out of WP:MOS. It got into there in this edit in Jan. 2010, with nothing in support on the talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I thnk it's OK to leave the example with lowercase the, as it indicates that we've thought about it and rejected their specialized capping; but we could also put an alternative where the is dropped. Dicklyon (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I take issue with the assertion that "The fact that they make a huge fuss over it is part of why we shouldn't endorse their silly posturing in our MOS."

This Manual of Style is not about the use of "the". It is about capitalization. This is a valid example because some people will write "the Ohio State University" whether we like it or not, especially if they are university staff. The important thing from the perspective of this MoS is that they not write "The Ohio State University" (unless they are beginning a sentence with it).

The argument over whether to use "the" or not belongs elsewhere, not here. Ground Zero | t 18:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you're missing part of what I said. I totally agree that "The argument over whether to use "the" or not belongs elsewhere, not here." This section is about capitalization, not "the". That is why I'm saying that this is not a good example to put here. I'm not saying we should change it to say "researchers at Ohio State University". I'm saying we should change the example so that it does not appear to express an opinion either way about whether to include "the" or not for that particular institution. Some other institutions that use "The" with caps in self-published content include The University of Texas at Arlington ("Founded in 1895, The University of Texas at Arlington is a Carnegie Research 1 institution ..."), The University of Texas at Austin ("Like the state it calls home, The University of Texas at Austin is a bold, ambitious ..."), and The Chicago School of Professional Psychology ("By integrating physical and mental well-being, and combining theory with hands-on experience, The Chicago School is a leading ...". I think UT Arlington or UT Austin would be a better choice than OSU. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is a good example because without this specific guidance it is likely that OSU-enthusiasts will capitalize the the, and we should tell them not to in this case and in any similar case. Switching to another example would likely be seen as confirmation by them that (contrary to what we want) OSU should somehow be treated as special and different. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I can see the points being made by both BarrelProof and by David. The solution might be to retain the example of OSU because it serves a specific purpose but to add another example where the would be the natural construction. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The example is important for forestalling a topically specific bad habit but is not really the most illustrative of regular enc. writing. There's no hurry though; pending resolution of the discussion above below this one, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints may be the ideal additional example.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done: Per this discussion and the related RfC, I've replaced the OSU example with an LDS example [5].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC on mid-sentence and mid-article title capitalization of the in the full name of the LDS Church

The following discussion 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.

---

Should [T]the be capitalized mid-sentence and mid-article title when referring to [T]the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Please respond Capitalize or Lower case and explain as you desire. There is an additional section below for discussion and alternatives.

Sentence examples:

• The history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints includes ... .

or

• The history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints includes ... .

Article title examples:

• History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

or

• History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The text above, and the notifications and headings below were developed and finalized at User:SchreiberBike/Workspace/Mid-sentence and mid-article title capitalization of the in the full name of the LDS Church and the associated talk page. That proposal was announced on this page above. SchreiberBike | ⌨  12:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Notifications

The following pages have been notified:

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
• Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints

Responses

• Lower case. Let's use a consistent and logical approach. Popcornfud (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Lower case, per Popcornfud. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. This seems to be already covered by the guideline at MOS:INSTITUTIONS, which MOS:THECAPS notes may be different from how The New York Times is treated. Is this a proposal to change the "Institutions" guideline? StarryGrandma (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  • No changes to MOS:INSTITUTIONS, however Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints has an exception which would be eliminated and practice in articles and article titles has been to capitalize the when using the full name of the institution. Those would be changed and it would be clear that MOS:INSTITUTIONS applies to that institution. This RfC grew out of the discussion in #Midsentence capitalization of the above which did not reach a consensus. I hope that adds clarity. SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Use lower case. There is no reason to make a strange exception, as independent sources mostly do not make one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Lowercase the – First of all, we should be clear that since titles use sentence case, there's not a separate question for the two different contexts, as some had suggested elsewhere. Just as we do for the Ohio State University, lowercase the when not in sentence-initial or title-initial position. Also note that most sources use lowercase the in mid-title or mid-sentence. Dicklyon (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Lowercase the, there seems to be no valid reason to apply an exception to MOS:INSTITUTIONS and MOS:THECAPS in this case. —El Millo (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• lowercase as that is the usual way around here. except for the beatles after a huge contretemps. and i guess some newspaper names. but not churches. Herostratus (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't find exceptions for the Beatles, do you? If you point them out, I'll fix them. Dicklyon (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• Lowercase per MOS:THEINST and SMcCandlish, Dicklyon, et al. Graham (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment There would seem to be come conflicts between MOS:THEINST and the guidelines in WP:THE, which, based upon MOS:THEINST, would need a review/revision. WP:THE lists The Church of Latter-day Saints, along with The Coca-Cola Company, The Hershey Company, The New York Times Company, and The Travelers Companies as examples of when to retain a capitalized The. My default thought is that The should remain capitalized for the church when the full name is given the same way The would remain capped for book or movie title; it's the formal name. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  WP:THE is a naming convention guideline, applying to article titles. It's not commenting on capitalization in running prose. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  Good point, my confusion. But logically, I would expect the running text to be consistent with the title (at least as far as something like this goes) in most cases. Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  The guidance to include "The" at the front of article titles for those entities is in no way in conflict with the guidance to use lowercase "the" in sentences. The same "the" would be lowercase in title when not in the initial position. I.e., use sentence case. Dicklyon (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Selective Capitalize per Tcr25's comments. "The" is a part of the church's formal title, and ought to be included where it is appropriate, most especially when it is wikilinked in the article, or referring to the legal entity of the church. I have no qualms with following the MOS at other locations, however (should be "History of the Church", etc.). Rollidan (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  Do you have examples of where you'd cap it, and where not, in actual article sentences? I think being wikilinked is never an appropriate criterion for capping in a sentence. Is there precedent for that? Dicklyon (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Lowercase I see no reason to carve out this one exception to our otherwise consistent style rules. --Jayron32 17:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Selective Capitalize - Do the correct case, dam the style fantasies and any notion WP can just ignore the context, externally known “correct” case, and prior WP guidances. Just use the correct case as indicated guidelines at MOS:INSTITUTIONS, MOS:THECAPS, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints. I see unmentioned prior discussion at Midsentence capitalization, but let’s be serious - “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” is part of the proper noun “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”. Informal usage without “The” would also not capitalise “Church” or even have the whole phrase. Please respect any entity or person by using what they use as their name, as simply the correct name. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Be consistent within an article, not consistent between articles. Most readers don’t care whether it is capitalized or not, and won’t notice which was chosen as long as it is consistent within the specific article they are reading. Go with what was done in the first major edit, and stick with it. Blueboar (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
• Lowercase, just as we do for the Beatles ("The Beatles" as the article's title, "the Beatles" in the article's running prose [although I personally think the title should be just "Beatles"]). There's no reason for the LDS church to be a special case. Deor (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I think I've said more than my share in the previous discussion. Sources are divided on how they write the name. Styleguides for the AP and the Salt Lake Tribune (local Utah newspaper not affiliated with the church) both say uppercase. NYTimes prefers lowercase. I've also seen both upper and lowercase in books about Mormonism. It looks like the consensus here is trending toward lowercase. My preference then would be to leave enough leeway to use uppercase if the full name of the church is wiki-linked to avoid the awkward transition from lower to uppercase in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. ~Awilley (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Awilley - Style guides is a good idea, though in this topic the Salt Lake Tribune would seem more authoritative. Can you provide links to the style guides you mention ? That of LDS is here and here, and for AP is mentioned here, both seem for capitalised “The”. Chicago manual of style I think is the other way, but I have no link. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, it's clear that different publishers have different styles. Wikipedia has an articulated style, too, so we might as well follow it. Wikipedia style does not include any special treatment for wikilinked vs plain text. Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Since "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" redirects to the LDS article, one simply has to type "the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]" to avoid the awkward inclusion of "the" in the link. Deor (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• Lowercase Per my comments in the initiating discussion, I see no reasonable reason that this should be an exception to the more general guidance of the MOS. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• Lowercase As I wrote in the preceding two discussions (WT:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints#Capitalization issue and #Midsentence capitalization of the), this is clearly documented by MOS:THEINST and MOS:THECAPS, so anyone !voting "uppercase" would be ignoring said guidelines. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• Lower case: MOS:INSTITUTIONS applies to this institution like it does to other institutions. I don't find support for the idea that there is something different about this name because it is a proper name, formal name, or special in some other way. MOS:INSTITUTIONS is specifically about such names, the proper, formal, special names of institutions. Wikipedia does take seriously the choices of other publications and style guides when setting its own style, but then Wikipedia follows its own style. If other publications consistently capitalized, that might be persuasive, but they do not. SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• Lower case per MOS:INSTITUTIONS.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion and alternatives

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.

Application of this RFC to article space

Hi all, I think I applied the RFC to pretty much everything, but there are likely to still be some hanging threads. For example, I am a page mover but I think there was at least one page (that I now cannot find) which was admin-protected. If you come across anything else which applies, please change it! And if you cannot, permissions wise, feel free to drop a note here to find someone who can. Please and thanks!— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: Thanks for taking care of that. You actually missed quite a few articles, which I've moved. Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only one that's admin-protected, so I've posted at WP:RM/T. There were also a ton of categories (around 70) which I've requested for speedy renaming at WP:CFDS. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for doing that. I am unfamiliar with the moving process for categories so I was going to look into it today. As an FYI to anyone and everyone: when you move a page, per WP:RMCI, you should also fix the title of that page as it appears in the body and make sure the first sentence still makes sense per our guidelines. Also check all the templates at the bottom of the page! So that the title appears bolded when viewing that template on the page in question. See also: WP:BOLDTITLE. I've gone through and done this for all of the pages both InfiniteNexus and I touched, but there may still be other pages where the text is not compliant with our MOS as decided here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I usually do that extra step after moving a page, but given the sheer number of pages I confess I got lazy and skipped it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I went through and did a few thousand more edits to lowercase the. This resulted in some notice and discussion on my talk page, and the comment in the subsection below here. Dicklyon (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Response to closure

This was closed prematurely and or was not added to enough notifications. Not including the full name of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" accurately, by including a capital "t" in The is considered offensive by many and while it is not always Wikipedia policy not to offend we do try not to offend, such as using the correct pronouns for individuals, using preferred names for individuals etc. In addition I believe it violates BLP by not including the name correctly. Many individuals of that faith have articles and by changing the name of the church to which they belong, is changing something that many of them hold dear. Please reconsider this RFC. --VViking_TalkEdits 17:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

VV, a couple of things. Changing the styling, how a name is rendered in Wikipedia, is not changing the name. Even the LDS website is not completely consistent in this capping, so I don't they're offending themselves. Where do you get the idea that this is "considered offensive by many"? We hadn't seen or heard any inkling of that before. Dicklyon (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I would echo what Dicklyon said above, but also point out:

How do you think other churches (e.g. Community of Christ, Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)) feel when the LDS church says: "Note that the article The begins with a capital letter. This is an important part of the title, for the Church is the official organization of baptized believers who have taken upon themselves the name of Christ" and "The word The indicates the unique position of the restored Church among the religions of the world". I certainly appreciate that the LDS church feels they are in a "unique position" among those in the LDS movement. But I do not think Wikipedia should recognize it as a "unique" entity in that respect. It is another church in a movement of churches. We do not treat any individual sect as "unique" or "special" on Wikipedia. We have a manual of style that prefers consistency, and this is another example of that consistency. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Viewmont Viking, while I'm sorry to hear that you and Blaze Wolf missed the RfC, others and I already did our best to publicize the discussions we had on as many venues as possible. Before the RfC, I posted on the talk pages of nearly every single LDS article I could find that had a "the" in the middle of its title (example 1, example 2, example 3), including on the WikiProject talk page. After the RfC was launched, it was advertised on both the main LDS page as well as the main MoS page. Furthermore, the discussions and the RfC were held on highly visible pages, namely the project-specific MoS talk page and the capitalization-specific MoS talk page. I don't think there was anything more we could have done to increase awareness of the RfC and the two discussions that came before it.

Now, onto the question being asked. I still don't see any convincing evidence for the LDS Church to be exempted from a WP policy, and neither did the !voters in the RfC. Dicklyon and Shibbolethink both raise very good points, but I'd like to add that MOS:THEINST specifically notes: ... regardless of the institution's own usage. Like all MoS guidelines, this guideline is clearly not meant to please everybody but rather to impose uniformity on WP articles. I'm sure the folks at the Ohio State University and the Walt Disney Company are equally unhappy at Wikipedia for using a lowercase "the", but we're not going to grant them an exception either. Same thing for the LDS Church. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Capitalise cocktail names?

The issue has come up in relatively recent move requests at Talk:Long Island iced tea and Talk:Black and tan and is currently under discussion at Talk:Donkey punch (cocktail), but it seems never to have been discussed here. A commenter in the Long Island iced tea discussion invoked the spirit of MOS:GAMECAPS in arguing that "cocktail names are absolutely not proper names any more than any other...recipe topics, from ethnic dishes to herbal teas to breakfast foods to coffee cultivars to traditional stuff drinks like malta and hotchata..." I agree, but this conflicts with the International Bartenders Association style guide. Please discuss if you care. —  AjaxSmack  19:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• The International Bartenders Association style guide is not our style guide. There is no need to capitalise a descriptive term such as X punch. Non-descriptive terms might be considered a proper name per the general guidance here. However, this might be difficult to determine since most recipes tend to only give the name in a heading rather than prose. There is also WP:SSF to contend with. My view is probably consistent with the spirit of MOS:GAMECAPS too. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Conflict with specialized styles is common, and not a problem. I worked on some of those a few years ago, and the consensus was always (as far as I can recall) to go with WP style, not with IBA style. That's still the case in the discussions you linked. But yes, there are still more to fix. There may be some proper names among them, but probably not many; I don't think individual discussions are needed unless you get pushback on a fix. Dicklyon (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not interested in mass renames. I just wanted something here to link to to save time in cases like this. Or not if my interpretation is wrong. —  AjaxSmack  16:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Of course RM's would be needed on each rename, all would be controversial. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

​It's interesting that the names of non-alcoholic drink don't appear to incite controversy, but add some alcohol and voilà!. (cf. iced tea/Long island iced tea, fruit punch/donkey punch). I concur with the sentiment that alcohol adds importance to the topic, but stand on principle, anyway. —  AjaxSmack  18:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• Most should be uppercased, expecially if used as a proper name, Harvey Wallbanger for example. Our page Long Island Iced Tea is improperly lowercased per n-grams. I checked n-grams for Sex on the Beach and found that actual sex on the beach is exactly as popular as the cocktail. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
  • ​But they are not proper names. —  AjaxSmack  17:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Randy, your linked n-grams very clearly shows that Long Island iced tea is not consistently capitalized in sources. And don't forget that an awful lot of the capped instances are because people capitalize table entries and section headings and such (e.g. as in this book that has it both ways). By contrast Harvey Wallbanger is treated by almost everyone as a proper name, as if it's the name of a person, which maybe it is, or was intended to be. Dicklyon (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Just to be nitpicky, but even Harvey Wallbanger is not a proper noun. It's capitalised because it seems to be named for a person and names derived from proper nouns are usually capitalised (including those derived from fictional people [like a Tom and Jerry], or with no actual connection to the proper noun [like a White Russian]). —  AjaxSmack  18:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• They should be lower case; we have MOS:ACTCAPS for a reason, and it clearly is meant to cover this and all other "modern folklore" topics like traditional games, dances, sports moves/techniques, yadda yadda yadda. PS: In the case of a "fake proper name", like Harvey Wallbanger, upper-case is okay, and the guideline already covers that with the McTwist example.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I got a copy of the 1930 Savoy cocktails book to see what they did back in the day. It's a loss – all the cocktail names are all-caps, and all ingredients are capped (e.g. Lemon Juice). Not much signal there. Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Yep. Classic WP:SSF "capitalize everything in my field/hobby just because it's a term in my field/hobby". PS: And field guides and things like them typically capitalize every entry; has nothing to do with what to capitalize in an encyclopedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC); rev'd. 23:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Definitely not. By and large, these aren’t proper nouns and weren’t intended to be. The notable exceptions (as noted above) are exceptions that make the rule. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Capitalization of Web in the Website article

A user has changed all occurrences of "web" to "Web" throughout the article, apparently because World Wide Web mentions "the Web" (but itself doesn't capitalized "web" throughout that article). Another opinion would be helpful. MB 01:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Capitalisation of offices, noble titles and social classes

I'm looking for comment on the capitalisation practices of some titles and classes of people. In light of MOS:OFFICE ("Offices, titles, and positions...are common nouns"), I feel that titles like Keeper of the Seals, Kapitan Cina (but not the "Cina"), and Chief Court Mistress should not be capitalised. (Category:Positions of authority has some titles of single individuals like paramount leader and lowercased, while others like Supreme Leader (North Korean title) are not.) Based on guidelines, can all of these be boldly lowercased assuming sources are mixed?

Likewise some social classes like yangban are lowercased while others like Cabang Atas are not. Of noble titles, Maharaja is capitalised while sheikh is not. Don (honorific) is mixed within the article. I don't see a specific guideline covering these, but can they be boldly lowercased assuming sources are mixed? —  AjaxSmack  06:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Be Bold @AjaxSmack: Most of us here would agree that, following Wikipedia's style, they should be lower case. Many people, however, have the belief that positions of power should be capitalized and you will have some objections. If you make a change and someone changes it back, you can start a discussion on that article's talk page and post a notice of it above at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization discussions ongoing (keep at top of talk page). <humor>Go forth and bring down capitalization.</humor> SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Better to open an RFC on that matter. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I often don't. For me it goes along with our advice to be bold and to not be a bureaucracy. Probably eight times out of ten no one objects and I've saved a lot of time. When someone does object, I'll discuss it and if necessary, then do the RfC. This only applies when it is clearly following our MoS, not when it is an edge case where it might be considered the name of an office or something. SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I would still advise an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

​On any/all of the above cases? —  AjaxSmack  16:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

All of them. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I can use the WP:RM process for a couple of these (with notification here). —  AjaxSmack  18:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Cap Indigenous?

We've had lots of discussions about "Black", but I don't find anything on the related concept "Indigenous", and similar terms. There's a question about capitalization of that one in a currently open RM, with some claims that a Wikiproject has decided it should be capped, but I can't even find any evidence for a such a discussion or consensus, or even a statement of a decision or convention (but there is a section on style guides that links guides that do capitalize). Have I missed something? Dicklyon (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Lower-case it. It's a descriptive term, not a proper name. There are indigenous peoples all over most parts of the world. Certain phrases are taken as proper names, including American Indian (increasingly disused), Native American, and (in Canada) First Nations. But "indigenous people[s] of [place]" isn't among them. PS: The one of the leading reasons we have a site-wide style guide is because topical wikiprojects want to over-capitalize like mad in their topic area, almost universally (the WP:Specialized style fallacy). If a wikiproject thinks a term should be capitalized, it should make that case here where people not wedded to their pet topic, but to writing well generally and for a general audience, can have proper input.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• Lower-case - it's a descriptive term, not a proper name. GoodDay (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• In certain cases, "indigenous" is (almost) always capitalized: Indigenous Australians; see also 1st sentence in Indigenous peoples and "Racial and Ethnic Identity", APA Style. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, "Indigenous Australians" seems to have become a proper name, with "Aboriginal Australians" also being taken for one but starting to lose ground, because "Aborigine", like "Eskimo", is increasingly taken as offensive. But "Indigenous Americans" is nowhere near this level of proper-name formation (yet?). It's just a descriptive phrase, like "indigenous Hondurans" or whatever. Contrariwise, "Native Americans" is treated near-universally as a proper name now, but this would not be true in other cases ("native Hondurans"). Yes, there are people who want to capitalize every possible way to refer to a population of people, and you can even find some source material that does this, but it's not normal writing, and it's not encyclopedic writing. It's activist writing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

In the context of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, Indigenous is typically capitalized in Canadian English. Graham (talk) 04:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Definitely should be capitalized in Canadian English engvar articles. Engvar is a notable exception to most MOS. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't really mean for this to be an RFC-like debate. Just wondering whether it has been discussed before. It seems not, but I'll ask at the project, too. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit to MOS:CAPS people may have missed this edit with the summary: Per talk, adding "Indigenous" example and footnote w/ shortcut links to other pages that go into more detail. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It should be capitalized per:

• Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes).
• Per The Chicago Manual of Style Online: We would capitalize "Indigenous" in both contexts: that of Indigenous people and groups, on the one hand, and Indigenous culture and society, on the other. Lowercase “indigenous” would be reserved for contexts in which the term does not apply to Indigenous people in any sense—for example, indigenous plant and animal species. A parallel distinction arises for the word “black,” which many writers now capitalize in references to ethnicity and culture (a usage that CMOS supports) but not, for example, when it is simply a color.
• Per the Associated Press style guide: Indigenous (adj.) Capitalize this term used to refer to original inhabitants of a place. Aboriginal leaders welcomed a new era of Indigenous relations in Australia. Bolivia’s Indigenous peoples represent some 62% of the population.
• Per the APA style guide: Likewise, capitalize terms such as "Native American," "Hispanic," and so on. Capitalize "Indigenous" and "Aboriginal" whenever they are used. Capitalize "Indigenous People" or "Aboriginal People" when referring to a specific group (e.g., the Indigenous Peoples of Canada), but use lowercase for "people" when describing persons who are Indigenous or Aboriginal (e.g., "the authors were all Indigenous people but belonged to different nations").

Cheers,  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 20:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

So per those sources we should be capitalizing Indigenous, Aborigine, Native American, Black, White, Hispanic, etc at Wikipedia when used for people/groups or culture/society? Interesting. I'm not partial either way as long as it's consistent for everything. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Those guides do say to cap those things, but sources (books in particular) still don't mostly capitalized Indigenous, Aborigine, Black, and White when referring to people or peoples (they do consistently capitalize Hispanic and Native American and First Nation). Wikipedia follows reliable sources, not those guides, right? Dicklyon (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. Now we don't want recentism to creep in since that's against Wikipedia guidelines, are the reliable books/magazines/press, let's say over the last five years, not capitalizing those terms? And if some of those reliable sources do capitalize and some don't, I was told wikipedia should not capitalize. What's also interesting is simply scrolling through google search on the terms. It looks like most articles that capitalize First Nation and Native American, also capitalize Indigenous and Aborigine. It's when indigenous and aborigine are used alone in articles that I see lower case. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you quote where Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) says to capitalize Indigenous? Or answer the original question about whether this was ever discussed some place? Dicklyon (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to search through all of Wikipedia history to find the discussion, I'll just have the discussion now.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 08:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to track it down, just to explain why you said that "It should be capitalized per ... Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)", when I can't see it in there.

I have done some tracking down of where WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Resources came in (the Wikiproject section that lists guides that support capitalization). It was added in this edit with summary "Starting this, per talk. ..." (and the next edit), by the same editor who recommended such a section 20 minutes earlier (last Nov. 23) in this edit. So it appears that the only "talk" that led to this resource section was this editor talking to himself. And though it lists resources that support capitalization of Indigenous, it doesn't indicate anything about what guides do not recommend that, or recommend lowercase. So, you're right, it needs to be discussed here still, as it is still being discussed in books. Dicklyon (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Lower case. It's a description, not a name. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• @Dicklyon, GoodDay, Michael Bednarek, Graham, Oncamera, Fyunck(click), and David Eppstein: An essentially duplicate discussion has been prematurely reopened below, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#MOS:RACECAPS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Please don’t copy-paste user names — display names and user names don’t always match. In this case you were aiming for Graham11 but you got me. Graham (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  Pinging Graham11, then.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)