Talk:Capitalization/Archive 1

In-Line Quotes
Is this an oversight? In the following:
 * Bob said, "This is not the time".

The "This" should be capitalized, no? I did not see this point mentioned. I am not an expert, but I believe this is correct.

71.141.227.12 (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Titles
I followed the Wiki motto &mdash; be bold! &mdash; and added a section on (English) titles, based on several decades of observations of library, music publishing, and other cultural practices. I imagine it will generate some controversy. I invite comments, suggestions, and criticisms. -- Jeff Q 14:05, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Often 'job titles' are capitalised in 'Situations Vacant' advertisements, and elsewhere. Business Analyst, Professor of English ... Come to think of it, many newspapaer ads are written in note form with a capital initial letter for each line, but no full stop if there is no verb : ie not a sentence. I like them - helps to distinguish special words ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Slight contradiction with the French one
"In French, accents are sometimes dropped from the uppercase letter of a capitalized word: l'Etat."

I now quote the French one De l'usage des majuscules:

"Les majuscules et les capitales s'écrivent en principe avec les accents et autres diacritiques, au même titre que les minuscules.": Uppercase letters in principle take accents the same way as lowercase letters.

It is not "sometimes" it is dropped and "sometimes" not, it is just due to the problem of typing accents on uppercase letters with the first typewriters. However the rule is: "capitalized letters also take accents" - (unsigned)


 * Some people put the accents on capital letters, and some don't. That's pretty much the definition of "sometimes", isn't it? - Nunh-huh 05:41, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course not. That's like saying that "friend" is sometimes spelled "freind" because some people spell it that way.  The only relevant question here is whether they're correct in so doing.

Okay, it may be wrong according to L'Académie, but people often do it and are not corrected... even by school teachers. You'll see it in ads. It doesn't mean it is not wrong, but it's accepted, while freind is not accepted in English at all. It's a peccadillo at most. This is often the case in Italian, people type 'E or E' instead of È (is) or citta' instead of città (city).

Languages all over the world that capitalize all nouns
The article currently claims that various other languages besides German capitalize all nouns. I know that Danish did this as well before the 1950s, but what other languages do this today? Or is this statement simply wrong and should be removed (especially considering it was added originally by someone who also claimed, wrongly, that French also does that)? -- Markus Kuhn 19:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I've also thought this was odd but I'm not an expert. I have heard that other Germanic languages formerly did this. Can you find a more exact date for Danish, and is it mentioned on the Danish page? Also, does anybody know whether it was also formerly done in Afrikaans, Dutch, Flemish, Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish, or any of the less well-known languages? It would also be nice to know when each language stopped doing it and if it was part of a larger spelling reform. &mdash; Hippietrail 03:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I've included year 1948 for Danish changeover based on says


 * "German is the only language in which all nouns begin with a capital letter."
 * "Before 1948 the å was written aa [in Danish]. The spelling reform of that year also abolished the German practice of beginning all nouns with a capital letter". Joestynes 07:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems that Norwegian used to capitalise all nouns but abolished the practice before Danish. It seems to be part of the 1907 reform but as with all things relating to language in Norway it appears not to be so simple. It looks like either the 1906 reform or at least the capitalisation part wasn't really embraced and made standard until perhaps 1939. Finding direct details is very hard on the net but this helps: http://www.naha.stolaf.edu/publications/volume27/vol27_5.htm - about a Norwegian newspaper publish in the USA: &mdash; Hippietrail 03:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "In 1939, the paper introduced a spelling reform to bring its orthography into line with the 1907 changes in written Norwegian. These changes, however, ignored the much more substantial reforms adopted in Norway in 1917 and 1938. Decorah-Posten continued to capitalize nouns until 1961 ..."

Didn't English also do this at one time? I seem to remember seeing things written in 1600s or so that were written so. -208.62.152.236 19:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Major reordering
Apologies for smuggling some substantive additions into what is otherwise a (major) reordering of the material. My justification is that, I wanted to add some items, but other than the long miscellaaneous list, there didn't seem anywhere to put them; so I've redistributed the miscellany into the main paragraphs. I hope it gives a less English-centric article. The points I've added are:
 * aka title case, with discussion of Unicode titlecase characters (Croatian, polytonic Greek) (titlecase redirects here).
 * readded Dutch U with qualification "occasionally", and note on "van" - from Dutch wikipedia.
 * English surnames like ffoulkes with lowercase
 * example honorifics/titles
 * vocative O
 * Irish initial mutation
 * Generalise about digraph/ligatures Joestynes 07:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gods
I changed the wording to reflect that monotheistic gods are not the only gods whose names receive capitalization.

I am about to remove the part which reads. "Additionally, following some Biblical conventions, such as the New American Standard Bible, the word Lord may be written in small caps, which is a capitalized initial letter followed by additional capitalized letters in a smaller typeface." for two reasons.

1. This is not relevant to the topic of capitalization. It has to do with a specific situation in which a small caps font face is sometimes used.

2. The only time this convention applies is when the word 'Lord' rendered in small caps is used to translate the Hebrew tetragrammaton, YHWH, and has NO applications outside that specific context. If readers were to understand that this is an alternate way of capitalizing the word "Lord" for general writing purposes they would be in error.--Schlemazl 19:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I remember reading a bible that deliberately mixed 'lord' and 'Lord' to retain a subtle distinction between two words in Greek (or Aramaic?). I think it was the New World Translation from the Jehovah's Witnesses ? Interesting to see 'Biblical' with a capital, too ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation of nj, lj and dž
This article clearly states that nj, lj and dž are capitalised as Lj, Nj, and Dž. Wikipedia does not conform to this standard (see DŽ, LJ (letter)). Therefore I will be bold and do some serious page moving (or request the pages to be moved where the move is not trivial) and redirect all discussion here. --Dijxtra 13:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Race?
Do terms such as "black" and "white" have to be capitalized when used in relation to someone's race? Some sentences to consider: Which one of these is correct? All? None? Some? I don't really know. AucamanTalk 08:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "He saw a White man walking down the street."
 * "I would have been accepted if I wasn't White."
 * "I general, White people tend to have higher incomes."


 * As far as I am aware, none of them. 'White' is not a name, it is a description.  Similarly you wouldn't capitalise 'Tall' in the sentence "In general, Tall people are more likely to have back problems." --HappyDog 00:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In South Africa, in the bad old days, the races were legally defined and the names of the four main race groups, White, Black, Coloured and Indian, were capitalised in South African law and when referring to race groups in any legal sense. Generally, however, races are not capitalised.  Paul Beardsell 03:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * & by; I should think this discussion (and even more so, the article and the MoS) deserve thorough rules & perhaps even more thorough qualifications re this matter. (I may not get a round tuit myself.... Nor remember, for that matter, to note it here,even if I do!) --Jerzy•t 04:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)--Jerzy•t 04:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, I 'spose that cryptic "& by;" is my garbling of, or a syntactic reconstruction of, [ see "construe", not "construct" ... sorry, typing this is a reminder to self to write, instead, "construing" rather than "construction", in the rest of the presumable .5 to 5 years of writing that I have left ] a garbling by me of markup along the lines of ''  ". --Jerzy•t 05:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

My goodness,what a horrendous waste of 37 minutes of laboriously counterintuitive typing of confusing markup! I'm not going to follow it up with the further waste time and patience that it would require if I were to either get it right this time, or explains how I went wrong! ""A little knowledge is a dangerous thing; drink deep, ,or taste not, the Pyrrhean spring!" --Jerzy•t 05:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

iPod, eBay, iMac, etc.
What are the rules for the capitalisation of these words? I query in particular regarding having these words at the beginning of a sentence, but also with regards typing in ALLCAPS. Liam Plested 19:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Based on what I've seen around the internet, in print, and especially in Apple's and eBay's writing, it seems they should be capitalized as they appear, even when at the beginning of a sentence:

 eBay is a great auction site. is correct.  EBay is a great auction site. is incorrect.  Ebay is a great auction site. is also incorrect.  EBAY is a great auction site. is super duper incorrect.

eBay example: About eBay, "eBay is The World's Online Marketplace®, enabling trade on a local, national and international basis." Apple example:, "iMac comes with iLife ’06, a suite of easy-to-use applications that make the spectacular part of your everyday life." Both accessed 6 June 2006.

As for typing in ALLCAPS ... well, that is bad style, anyway. I don't think any way would be "more correct" in an already incorrect situation like that, so I'll say nothing.

-jauricchio 13:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oxford Manual of Style concurs with this assessment. JulesH 18:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No matter what the word is, when starting a sentence even these words must be capitalized.

Jeffrey ten Grotenhuis 09:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Rules can be bent if it becomes common enough to write a word a certain way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coching (talk • contribs) 09:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that using the trademarked spelling (if is such as appears to be in this case) is the standard to be followed, even if it goes against normal capitalization rules. So, for example, "eBay is a good place to get an iPod."  That is my opinion anyway.  69.182.174.55 (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The first letter of a sentence must always be capitalized, period. Also, many things in English are common but still not (and will never be) considered right. Ask any English teacher or Professor. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Compound names
In the section on Dutch, the we have the sentences "the particle 'van' in a surname is not capitalized if a forename or initial precedes it. So Franky van der Elst in prose becomes Van der Elst, Franky in a list." I do not speak Dutch, but I used to work at an academic library in Switzerland, and for Dutch names practice was that the particle was "attached" to the first name, so Franky van der Elst would normally be filed under "Elst, Franky van der," not "Van der Elst, Franky." A Dutch speaker should confirm or refute, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.110.137 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Worth noting that if this were true, alphebetisations of lists of Dutch names would probably end up with extremely long 'V' sections.


 * Anyway, the section has been changed to not refer to lists at all, but I still think it's wrong. The Oxford Manual of Style has this to say on the subject:


 * "As a Dutch prefix to a proper name, van, van den van der are usually not capitalized except at the beginning of a sentence, and therefore are all alphabetized under the main name."


 * Like the previous anonymous poster, however, I'm not comfortable making the change as I don't speak Dutch. The Oxford Manual of Style is a great source for English rules, but I'm not confident that it's brilliant when it comes to other languages. JulesH 18:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I am Dutch, and I believe that in a list we write Elst, Franky van der. Since Elst is the "real" last name. Hope I helped. Celia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.187.116.195 (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation of titles by British publishers
I think if we're going to say "most" British publishers use sentence capitalisation for titles, we need a source for it. I say this primarily because I don't think it's true. I think it may be true for a limited subset of cases: particularly, for titles of articles in magazines and newspapers. I don't think it's true for titles of publications (note that New Scientist has both words capitalised). I'm not certain about titles of chapters in books: examining a few books on my desk shows one in sentence case (Macmillan) and two with most words capitalised (OUP, Pergammon Press). JulesH 08:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems you misunderstood sentence case. "New Scientist" is a a proper noun, namely the name of this publication. It is therefore capitalized even in a normal sentence. Therefore, the magazine title "New Scientist" is a correct example of sentence case.
 * Sentence case only means that the same rules for capitalization are applied in sentences and in headlines. In both cases, proper nouns (which can comprise several words) are capitalized. Therefore, if you merely look at a proper noun, you can't distinguish title case and sentence case.
 * I have yet to find a single British newspaper, magazine, or journal that does not use sentence case. Please name at least one single counterexample before asking for sources. The problem in this discussion is that with sentence case, there is no need to have any special section in a style guide to clarify how word cases should be handled in headlines. In the absence of any particular special rules, the normal rules of English grammar apply equally in headlines and paragraphs. British book titles are capitalized where the book titles can be seen as proper nouns (i.e., the name of the book), but not because there is a special rule for capitalizing titles differently. Markus Kuhn 19:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not being an English author, and not familiar with the standards over there vs. over here (the USA), I still thought posting what I have seen (I consider myself an avid reader) might be helpful. Of the many books I have read, I have seen the book titles themselves be capitalized in opposition of sentence case (only the first letter be capitalized in each sentence, except proper nouns).  Sometimes, the prepositions would also be capitalized, but mostly not, unless used as the first word in the title.  The standard for chapter titles, in my experience, isn't so clear, as I have seen both formats used; specifically, sentence case in some instances, and also following the title standard, all words capitalized except propositions.  69.182.174.55 (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization (or capitalisation)
I don't think it is necessary to show both ways to spell this word. I think most English speakers are aware of the differences between American and British/Commonwealth/international (whatever). While I am American, my preference is for more the more latinate versions (Labor over labour, -ize over -ise, encyclopaedia or foetus over encyclopedia versus fetus). But whatever, that's me, anyway there's not need for TWO versions of the same word in the same sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.116.97 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It will help those that type the wrong one to find this article in search engines ... --195.137.93.171 (talk to the idiot) 22:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The wrong one?! What a perfect example of arrogance. Capitalisation is clearly the more commonly written form of the world globally. Astonvilla91 (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is only one example of the different spellings being used in each country. I think you would have a hard time "repairing" all the different pages that show this dichotomy.  Not only that, it does help others who are used to the variation in spelling the Americans use (the English were the ones we got our language from).  To be fair, I feel (and I am American as well) that there is a valid reason to show both spellings of this particular word.  69.182.174.55 (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Graphical user interfaces
Should the page also refer to graphical user interfaces' use of capitalization?

For example, the Microsoft GUI style guide recommends "book title capitalization" for some user interface components ([]), and sentence style for others. Ptoboley 12:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If, then it should be presented as a recommendation in a particular named manufacturer's house style, not as a general recommendation. The danger with enumerating style guides that require special capitalization beyond the normal rules for English phrases or sentences is that this can easily give the impression that such rules are generally recommended practice. For balance, there should also be a list of similar style guides that lack special rules for capitalizing the first letter of most words in user interfaces. Even more important would be if we could find any references that justify such rules (practical advantages, etc.). By the way, I note that Microsoft itself is far from consistent in applying the quoted rule in its own products. In some other environments (e.g., Linux desktops), there is even a particularly wild mix between phrase case ("loading file ..."), sentence case ("Loading file ..."), and title case ("Loading File ..."). Markus Kuhn 16:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see this as a feasible idea to implement, nor do I see the point for it. This information is intended to be a general guideline with specific references to back up examples.  It would be ridiculous to expect this guide to be updated every time that another variation of a GUI was put in place.  69.182.174.55 (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do we capitalize?
There should be some explanation of why capitalization exists at all. Kent Wang 00:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Originally, we used only all caps. But lowercased letters 'evolved', if you will, from uppercased letters because they are smaller and easier to make.Cameron Nedland 21:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Then why not all lower case? Why maintain the distiction between upper and lower case? I have heard that the differentiation of upper case first letters in a sentence helps in identifying the beginning of sentences when scanning. This seems true to me but I would like some one more knowledgeable to include it in the article. Kent Wang 22:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good question, I think it would be great if we only had one variety of each letter. Can't help you bro, sorry.Cameron Nedland


 * This question was asked at the Bauhaus in the 1920s: “warum 2 alfabete, wenn eins dasselbe erreicht? warum großschreiben, wenn man nicht groß sprechen kann?” At the time the answer was to dispense with uppercase entirely: “wir schreiben alles klein, denn wir sparen damit zeit.” Perhaps there should be some mention of kleinschreibung as a theory, although its influence these days is more as a typographic or stylistic mannerism. -- coconino 06:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The historically more meaningful question to ask would be: why do we use minuscules at all? Markus Kuhn 17:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * They just kind of evolvd and we nevr deposed v them wen th printing press arived.Cameron Nedland 19:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree it helps scanning for sentence structure and making special words stand out without using punctuation. It would be interesting to know when changes occurred : someone remembers documents with Nouns from ~1600. I thought the word 'case' was evidence the change might have arisen with the invention of printing, like serifs. What was it called before - 'big letters' or 'majuscule' ?

I believe the time has come for linguistic revolution. All aspects of language ought to have clearly defined functions: the apostrophe indicates always the omission of a letter, the question mark signifies inquisition, and the colon introduces tangents. It seems to me that the capitalization of a word, in modern usage, assigns to it a degree of importance superior to that of words written entirely in minuscule. Capitalizing the initial word of a sentence increases the importance of that word, as it now serves to signify the beginning of a new thought. The capitalization of proper nouns raises their importance, and is, essentially, a gesture of respect--since i greatly respect Vanessa, i shall capitalize her name, however, as i don't much care for david, i'll not pay him that reverence. This is, in essence, what is done throughout history when referencing God: Thy Word, the Lamb, the Father--these words are not proper nouns, but they are capitalized to show a degree of veneration. Simplifying capitalization to a function determining status clarifies the ten thousand arbitrary rules of capitalization into a single, easily understood application. For me, this means that i refuse to capitalize the first person pronoun unless it begins a sentence, as i hold myself to be no more important than you. | Brandon Ghislain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.246.211 (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The same argument could be made for why the "standard" to some people is no longer to have two spaces after a period (or other sentence ender) at the end of a sentence, but has been reduced to one space. Personally, I still use two spaces.  I feel it helps to further distinguish the separation between sentences over the space after something like vs. within a sentence.  When scanning through a larger section of text, in my experience, it is easier to distinguish the end of a sentence with two spaces after it than it is with one space.  69.182.174.55 (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed after posting my previous comment that the wiki seems to want to bastardize my post and take out the usual two spaces I put in, and cut it down to one space. I have re-posted my previous post below to further show the difference between what I consider proper, and what the wiki formatting is forcing on it's contributors, in difference from proper English standards.

The same argument could be made for why the "standard" to some people is no longer to have two spaces after a period (or other sentence ender) at the end of a sentence, but has been reduced to one space. Personally, I still use two spaces. I feel it helps to further distinguish the separation between sentences over the space after something like vs. within a sentence. When scanning through a larger section of text, in my experience, it is easier to distinguish the end of a sentence with two spaces after it than it is with one space. To me, at least, it seems easier to read with the proper two spaces after a sentence than with only one. Wiki people, please change it back to have the two spaces after a sentence that should be there. 69.182.174.55 (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Overcapitalization
Why do people object to over-capitalisation - what harm does it do ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The way capitalization is used today in normal sentences carries some useful information, e.g. the distinction between proper nouns (capitalized) and normal nouns (not capitalized). Capitalization more aggressively than that only destroys such information. Is "A NICE WOMAN" a woman from Nice, or is she just nice? Overcapitalization clearly can introduce unnecessary ambiguity. Markus Kuhn (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Move
Would it make sense to move either this article or Market Capitalization to Capitalisation?Cameron Nedland 21:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really; see National varieties of English for more information. -- nae'blis 21:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Okey.Cameron Nedland 02:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

North, South, East and West
Are the names of the cardinal directions capitalised? This is equivalent to asking if they are proper nouns, I suppose. What about the names of the winds? Is it "the South wind" or "the south wind" or "the South Wind"? And then what about derivatives? "He was traveling in a [sS]outherly direction blustered by a [wW]esterly wind." Paul Beardsell 20:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are using it as a region, yes. 'I am heading to the North' & 'I am heading north'.  Capisce?Cameron Nedland 01:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That seems sensible to me. Thanks.  Paul Beardsell 05:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think the only time it isn't capitalized is when it is used as a part of another word, like "North" would be capitalized, but "northern" wouldn't be (unless it was a part of a company name, as in "Northern Express"). In your example, I believe it would properly be called "the South wind".  But, I think it would be "He was traveling in a southerly direction."  It wouldn't make sense to say "He was traveling in a South direction," but "He was traveling South" I think would be appropriate.  69.182.174.55 (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (addition to previous post) Cameron, I think, in your example, it would also be proper to say "I am heading North". I have seen more examples of capitalizing the cardinal directions  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.174.55 (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lost connection on entering last post, and did further research since as well.


 * I am back to put my foot in my mouth. Looked in the dictionary, and the cardinal directions are not capitalized unless used as a proper name.  So, "going North" would not be proper; "going north" would.  And also, "I am going to the North" would also be correct as pointed out by Cameron above.  69.182.174.55 (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Family members and relatives
What is the standard practice for capitalising nouns describing relatives? Is it "I told Mum about it", or "I told mum about it"; "You said about Dad's accident", or "You said about dad's accident", for example? I have seen both of these in frequent use and am confused as to which is ultimately correct. Daniel 21:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think in the respect you are asking, the terms "Mum" and "Dad" are used in the place of a name, and names are proper when capitalized. However, I think when used to describe a general person, such as "He was talking about his dad", it could be argued either way.  69.182.174.55 (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)