Talk:United States Capitol rotunda

Apotheosis of Washington
How is this entire section about the artist and how he spent his life and that he put his wife's image into most of his work relevant to the fresco? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.29.213 (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

criticisms
Much of the artwork has been criticized as misrepresentative and Euro-centric. (See the book "Lies My Teacher Told Me.") I think some of that should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ACE603 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 6 March 2007
 * Well, since I am not going to run out, buy it and read it just for this article, why don't you develop a well cited section and allow us to see it? --Daysleeper47 02:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's quite obvious that the images are misrepresentative and Euro-centric. I am not at all opposed to including this view, but it must be done in a brief way. --Edwin Herdman 00:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging of Brumidi Corridors
I plan to remove this from the top of the article in a week or so. The reason is that the Brumidi Corridors have nothing to do with the Rotunda, except both feature artwork by the same artist, Constintino Brumidi. Spatially, they're not even on the same floor of the building. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 20:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Painting of the Decleration of Independence
The notion of Jefferson stepping on Adams foot in the painting is being debated. I was wondering if anyone else had an opinion on this matter.
 * There really isn't much room for debate. See these photographs] I posted over in the article for the painting itself.  The feet do not touch.  Even in the original, smaller version of the painting, now at Yale University's art gallery, the feet do not cross over. ~ (The Rebel At) ~  22:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In association to this, earlier this evening, I just went ahead and removed the last of the Jefferson-Adams feud myth that still circulates around the content of the painting. Like many stories in the Capitol, they may be entertaining, but that doesn't make them true.  ~ (The Rebel At) ~  01:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Statues in the Rotunda
I'm finding the section Statues in the Rotunda very confusing.

First, in the list of five statues at From the Statuary Hall Collection, we have a bronze of George Washington by Houdon, "copy cast" in 1934. Second and immediately following the list, in the separate section George Washington, we says there's a bronze of Washington that is one of multiple castings from Houdon's marble original, this one made in 1853. So is this a different bronze from the copy cast in 1934? Seems unlikely that there are two castings of the same Houdon original in the rotunda. Third, we show a bronze statue of Washington by Houdon, although the text says that the bronze(s) are copies cast from Houdon's marble original.

The statue of Abraham Lincoln that is described immediately after Washington's: is that not part of the Statuary Hall Collection? Or maybe the terms of its display simply differ from the five, which are said to be on permanent display unless removed by act of Congress.

Following Lincoln, we describe the statue of Garfield. This seems clearly one of the five, so I don't understand why a description of the Lincoln statue intervenes between Washington and Garfield, or why the Washington and Garfield statues get a separate section of description when there's no amplification of the other three (Jackson, Eisenhower, Reagan).

After this, out of nowhere we get MLK, with the same kind of subhead as Washington, Lincoln, and Garfield. It seems to me that MLK should get the subhead, but that Washington and Garfield should be subsumed under "From the Statuary Hall Collection," with no independent subhead required. As for Lincoln, see my confusion above. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Individuals Lain in State not in the rotunda
The article prephases the list of individuals lain in state with:

Government officials and military officers to have lain in state in the Capitol rotunda are as follows (emphasis mine)

However not all of these individuals were lain in state. For example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was lain in state in the National Statuary Hall.


 * Ruth Bader Ginsburg was supposed to have lain in state at the Rotunda but that was denied by the Senate Majority Leader at the time. The US House's website as well noted Ginsburg and Cummings to have not been lain in state at the Rotunda and I will amend that . Coasterghost (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 22 January 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. First, I note that the nominator has requested a panel close. A panel close for an RM would be extraordinary, and I don't believe this discussion warrants it.

Reviewing the discussion, I found that a clear majority of contributors opposed the proposal, with 5 !votes to two, as well as a non-vote that leaned towards supporting. However, consensus is not determined by counting !votes but by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

Assessing the discussion through this lens I find that there is a consensus not to move the article. Editors opposing the move cited primarily cited MOS:CAPS with evidence for their position, while editors supporting the move had little policy basis for this position.

They did attempt to argue WP:IAR, but to ignore the rules editors need to convince a significant majority of editors that this is an exceptional case and warrants an exception; no such majority was convinced here. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

United States Capitol rotunda → United States Capitol Rotunda – Uppercased 'Rotunda' is the proper name of the structure and space, per ngrams and the Architect of the Capitol.&#32;Randy Kryn (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 13:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The capitalised version does enjoy something of a lead in ngrams, but I'm not certain if this is slamdunk enough to be declared an "uncontroversial" request. I'd probably support the move, but would like to see the evidence on both sides, and I think a full discussion would be useful. Remember, the bar for treating something as a proper name is "consistently capitalized in a significant majority of reliable sources" so enjoying a simple majority of usages isn't enough in itself. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Can someone please move it to a full discussion, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please note that the nominator has asked for a panel of three experienced closers to decide if WP:IAR applies to this RM, explained below. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * .  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 13:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose (and thanks for the personal alert, Randy). I don't think "per the Architect" helps the case – the stats show that lowercase was originally much more common.  It's also much more commonly referrred to as "the rotunda of the United States Capitol" – see n-gram stats and these.  Clearly descriptive.   If you do a book search, you see most capped uses in listings of various sorts, or as an address (e.g. this) or incidental (as here or here). Dicklyon (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, the uppercased name was prevalent in the 1920s up until 1935, then reversed a bit, then changed back for good in 1968 (as did many things). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment from nominator. The stats are now uppercased (highlighted by Dicklyon having to reach into "originally"). This is not about the term he is using, "the rotunda of the United States Capitol", but the proper name (according to ngrams, many sources including NBC News, and, importantly, the Architect of the Capitol) 'United States Capitol Rotunda'. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * When I do a news search for "in the United States Capitol Rotunda", I see 6 lowercase, 12 uppercase, and 2 not using the term in a sentence. Two-thirds is not "consistently capitalized in sources". Dicklyon (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are only 18 uses of the term in the history of the nation's news media? Okay, but even if that is unusually true, 66% is consistent enough for many uppercasings, especially when the official name is uppercased. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant to say in the first 2 pages of 10. Dicklyon (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - TBH, I've never seen the 'lower-case version' before, until seeing 'this' page. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless United States Capitol dome is changed as well (which I'm not necessarily advocating). Regardless of the outcome, I think there should be consistency between these two related pages. --Woko Sapien (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the dome is an outstanding visual feature of the Capitol and is also uppercased by the Architect of the Capitol as a proper name. The Rotunda is an accepted proper name for the art gallery, ceremonial place of honor, and the room known by millions as an iconic temple of democracy (augmented by artwork dedicated to that principle)., ngrams unfortunately indicate that the dome's lowercase form as a descriptive name is arguably correct in Wikipedia style. Maybe you can take into consideration, for now, the difference in ngrams and the fact that, even though the proximity of the dome and rotunda are visually connected inside, they are actually two different features of the capitol, and better to get one right than both wrong, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

the United States Capitol Rotunda	1923,1,1	1935,1,1	1959,5,5	1960,3,2	1968,3,3	1970,1,1	1971,3,3	1972,2,2	1975,1,1	1976,8,1	1977,2,2	1979,5,1	1981,1,1	1982,5,5	1983,1,1	1984,2,2	1985,1,1	1986,2,2	1987,5,4	1989,3,3	1990,7,7	1991,4,3	1992,9,6	1993,1,1	1994,7,5	1995,4,4	1996,1,1	1997,8,6	1998,22,22	1999,7,7	2000,8,8	2001,2,2	2002,12,7	2003,2,2	2004,9,7	2005,14,7	2006,9,9	2007,3,3	2008,16,15	2009,7,6	2010,4,4	2011,10,7	2012,3,3	2013,10,7	2014,9,9	2015,6,3	2016,7,3	2017,2,2	2018,4,3	2019,4,4 the United States Capitol rotunda	1939,3,3	1950,12,5	1957,4,1	1959,2,2	1964,5,2	1965,1,1	1968,4,4	1970,1,1	1974,1,1	1975,4,1	1976,1,1	1977,2,2	1981,9,5	1986,3,3	1987,1,1	1989,3,3	1990,2,1	1991,3,2	1992,1,1	1993,5,5	1995,2,1	1998,5,3	1999,5,5	2000,3,1	2001,2,2	2002,4,4	2003,5,5	2005,4,4	2006,5,3	2007,1,1	2008,2,2	2010,2,2	2011,1,1	2012,3,3	2013,1,1	2014,2,2	2016,2,2	2017,3,3	2018,3,3
 * Support – It is more accurate in terms of grammar and history, and does not interfere with searches. Svartner (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This doesn't relate to grammar in any way. Grammar is what makes "She are going to the store" or "My full is stomach" faulty usage. Has nothing to do with capitalization, which is a style-conventions matter. (Grammar is a feature of the spoken language, reflected in how it is written; spoken language doesn't have capital letters.) Historical importance of something has nothing to do with capitalization, either (see MOS:SIGCAPS in particular); European colonization of the Americas had a profound effect on global history, but it is not "European Colonization of the Americas" (not in our writing, anyway). Certainly vastly more important than part of a building.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per the Collins dictionary here, a proper noun|name is not descriptive. Rotunda is intrinsically descriptive of the structure. However, we are guided by WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS on this issue and would cap the name if it is consistently capped in sources. In considering this, we must also include the abbreviated form (US|U.S.), which is also much more common, per the evidence provided. When combined, evidence of usage clearly does not support that this is consistently capped in sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In your argument of what proper nouns consist of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts would be 'Boston museum of Fine Arts', etc. I've found that the one word, "consistency" is inappropriately used as a bludgeon in Wikipedia titling - even if, such as here, the evidence for proper name is vast, the numbers for uppercasing are over or close to 70%, and even the official name is "consistently" uppercased. Britannica uppercases 'Rotunda', as does Time, NBC, and many others., I know lowercasing articles is important to you, but please take another look at the data in this one and reconsider, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is why we have a very simple, accross-the-board standard at MOS:CAPS: Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are are capitalized in Wikipedia. See also WP:NCCAPS: For details on when to capitalize on Wikipedia, see the Wikipedia Manual of Style sections on capital letters and, when relevant, on trademarks. People have been arguing about what "is" "really" a "proper name" for centuries, and not only do separate disciplines like linguistics and philosophy approach the matter very differently, there is no agreement within the latter anyway (and it does not pertain to capitalization, only the linguistics meaning does). "Is/not a proper name" arguments on WP frequently turn disruptive and are never constructive. Just follow the sourcing and the guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My argument is based on an authoritative source (the Collins Dictionary) as cited. Naive arguments omit the fuller definition of what a proper noun|name is and broadly group anything that might be capitalised as a proper noun. Noun phrases might be capitalised for emphasis or importance. This is what is happening with this title but per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS, we don't do that. The Boston Museum of Fine Arts is an institution. While it may not be a proper name by definition, by near universally consistent convention, the names of businesses and institutions are capped in English. Hence, we see an ngram like this, which leaves no doubt that it is consistently capped for good reason and not for significance or importance. This argumentum ad absurdum made in rebuttal is based on a false equivalence between the two examples. If 70% were/is the threshold for capitalisation based on usage in prose, then this title still falls short. The raw ngram data for the combined terms (ie including US|U.S.) here gives 66% capitalisation - so no cigar. But this is not exclusively usage in prose. It includes headings, captions, references etc where we would expect to see title case rather than sentence case. For ngram data, it is common to make a 10% allowance for these non-prose uses, taking these results even further from the threshold for capitalisation. We also see that R|rotinda of the US|U.S.|United States Capitol has much more common usage than the present construction (per DL here and also see here) This WP:COMMONNAME is only slightly less concise and far more natural. Furthermore, it gives prime position to the key word for searches (ie rotunda). I would support Rotunda of the United States Capitol or Rotunda of the US Capitol, which is more common still and more concise. Given the strong preference for natural disambiguation per MOS:ACROTITLE, the lack of ambiguity in using the abbreviation is probably acceptable. Regardless, I do not think we can ignore the lack of capitalisation of rotunda in this construction when considering capitalisation of rotunda in which ever construction is used for the title. Both constructions impart the same meaning. There is no semantic difference. The evidence does not support capitalising rotunda, particularly since it is a descriptive term. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the "Rotunda of the..." form is fine as a title. If we do that, I hope this discussion will be enough to let us avoid over-capping in the text of articles, including links to that in sentences. Dicklyon (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS. This is not close to consistently capitalized in independent reliable sources. Capitalization pretty frequent, and even somewhat in the lead, but that is not sufficient. Ngrams on "United States Capitol [r|R]otunda, "U.S. Capitol [r|R]otunda", "US Capitol [r|R]otunda", and "Capitol [r|R]otunda": . It's also not as high as Dicklyon's 2/3 estimate; the capitalization is about 50% higher than the lowercase. Nor has this pattern been stable; in the early 2000s, usage was about even for one variant of the term; for another, the lowercase form was dominant in the mid-1990s. As for the related [d|D]ome subject, lowercase strongly dominates: .  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding to my reasoning: the policy Ignore all rules. Why? With the opposers playing with the ngrams by adding extra words, here are the real ngrams that show a dominant lead for uppercasing the proper name United States Capitol Rotunda. 'Consistency' is being used as a false obstacle in this case - we should not restrict ourselves with unfairly high "required" percentages in each and every case. Also consider the extremely important official name given to this world-class art museum and American temple of honor by the Architect of the Capitol: United States Capitol Rotunda (please don't bring up the essay-level "official names carry no weight" argument, for when the official name is also the endorsed ngram title for such an iconic space then a commonsense exception improves Wikipedia - thus fitting WP:IAR language). Guidelines ask editors, at the top of each page, to use their commonsense and to include exceptions. This requested change seems one that the policy - not an essay, nor a guideline - Ignore all rules exists to direct. To be fair to those who may be upset if one closer takes it upon themselves to make an IAR decision, although it doesn't seem at all controversial to me, I would ask that when it is time to decide, and if the "consistency" argument still holds some sway, that a closing panel of three experienced editors ascertains if the policy IAR applies here. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Randy, I don't understand why opposers presenting different bits of data leads to you wanting to ignore all rules and guidelines. We all admit that n-grams provide a blunt tool with a limited view of usage in the world.  Sometimes adding words such as "the" in front is a useful way to make the stats more toward sentence context, which is what's relevant to the capitalization (per the lead advice at both MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS.  Still, even with "the" you'll get book hits that are not that relevant.  For example, with this book search I get hits with the title The Murals by Constantino Brumidi for the United States Capitol Rotunda (in 3 of the first page of 10 book hits) and the event announcement Dedication of the Bust of Constantino Brumidi, "Michelangelo of the United States Capitol," Rotunda, U.S. Capitol (in 2 of the first page of 10 book hits).  These provide no more reason to cap Rotunda than they do Murals or Bust, yet they show up in the n-gram counts.  It's well known that things like this inflate the representation of capitalized forms in the n-gram stats, so when you see even 10 or 20 percent lowercase, this can still be a good sign that the term is not treated as a proper name in sources.  It helps to actually look and see.  Your "real ngrams" aren't showing what you want them to. Dicklyon (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * By the way, that title is from a chapter of a 1992 book, which explains a good part of the runup in uppercase stats in the '90s. At least 3 more recent books reference it.  Dicklyon (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, it's possible to download raw data on n-gram counts per year, with a bit of digging and patience (by hand, or using some open-source code). Here's what I found, showing very small numbers, easily influenced by things like a few books citing a chapter title.  After each year, the two small integers represent the number of occurrences of n-gram, and the number of volumes (books) that it was found it; the former is what the viewer plots.  E.g. in 1992 it's found capped 9 times, in 6 different books; in most years it's just once per book (the numbers match).  You certainly can't see "consistently capitalized" in these data. Dicklyon (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * "Hello, down here." After a boatload of very small numbers, many from 40, 50, or 80 years ago, the case for ignoring the above opposers and using WP:IAR is easy. Just Google the term. Go 10 and 20 pages in. You'll find that the main source that lowercases United States Capitol Rotunda is Wikipedia. The Architect of the Capitol uppercases. The United States Capitol Visitor Center uppercases. Britannica (for kids no less) uppercases. National Geographic uppercases. Uppercase leads in ngrams by a substantial margin. There is nothing wrong with using the official name, nor the name that Britannica uses. I could go on, but not to wall of text the closers, this uppercase IAR request to improve Wikipedia has backing. The Rotunda, in a way, is the nation's heart. It is where America's honored lay-in-state. It includes world class art and is recognized throughout the world. This is a proper name, not a descriptive afterthought, and Wikipedia should treat it as such. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It is important to recognise that this is En Wikipedia, not US Wikipedia. The OP would ask us to WP:IAR on the basis that the rotunda is important and significant to Americans (contrary to MOS:SIGNIFCAPS), because sources close to the subject (ie not independent) would capitalise it (contrary to the general advice at MOS:CAPS) and/or because the capitalised form is the official name given to it by the architect (contrary to WP:COMMONNAME). The link in evidence to the latter (see Architect of the Capitol and importantly, the Architect of the Capitol) is not the actual designing architect but a federal agency responsible for the buildings maintenance which would also capitalise the Rotunda, which is clear overcapitalisation. This would be a clear example of WP:SSF. We are also to assume from a page titled Capitol Rotunda that this is an official name. Both this and United States Capitol Visitor Center are not independent of the subject, while Britannica is but one source among many. There is no reason to give Britannica absolute weight in preference over all others.


 * WP:RMCIDC would tell us: Further, any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it [emphasis added]. Invoking WP:IAR is not a get out of jail free card. Per WP:5P5, we must consider the spirit and intent of the relevant WP:P&G. How is capitalising rotunda consistent with the spirit and intent of the prevailing P&G? I am not seeing any argument being put forward that it is. What I'm seeing here is not a good reason but arguments similar to WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:TDLI and WP:MERCY. I don't see any good reason that something important to Americans (or any other nationality) should be treated differently just because they consider it important. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what WP:IAR is for, to ignore the rules if doing so improves the encyclopedia. Does mirroring the official name by uppercasing United States Capitol Rotunda improve Wikipedia? Yes, very much, and it has a valid point-of-view as well as off-site evidence that backs up the uppercasing. Your linked rules, on the other hand, all of them at the guideline and essay level, are what is to be ignored. The policy, "Ignore all rules", does not read "Ignore some rules". Ignore all rules, if doing so improves the encyclopedia. This one has enough of a case to be given a commonsense exception (called for at the very top of each of Wikipedia's guidelines). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't see how that kind of style inconsistency improves the encyclopedia. Capital letters are supposed to mean something here; and not what you want to use them for. Dicklyon (talk) 06:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , if this is the official name, when was it officially named and by whom (who has the naming rights)? Cinderella157 (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Capital letters indicate proper names. United States Capitol Rotunda is the name used by the Architect of the Capitol - a 230-year-old office created in 1793 whose officeholder serves as the caretaker of the building and grounds - and by the United States Capitol Visitor Center. Look at the page references, their repetitive use of the uppercased version is evident. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This was a fairly straight forward question: when was it given this "official name" and who has the christening rights to give it an official name? Of course, there is the expectation that an answer to this can be verified. The apparent deflection in the response provided would indicate that the answer is unknown. The question goes to the heart of the assertion that this is an "official name". Cinderella157 (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ask and answered. The person, and the office, Architect of the Capitol, has been in charge of building affairs and grounds since 1793. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Consequently, I can only gather from this an assertion that the sole responsibility for naming the rotunda has been somehow devolved to the Architect of the Capitol (the appointed maintenance manager) independent of congress and the president. I find this somewhat incredulous and it is unsubstantiated by any sources. Further, the assertion is that it has had this "official" name since the conception of the Capitol building. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The United States Capitol Rotunda was conceived and designed by the first architect of the capitol, William Thornton, and completed under the third Architect of the Capitol, Charles Bulfinch between 1818 and 1824. As repeated several times, the Architect uppercases, the page sources and the United States Capitol Visitor Center uppercase, the events where many of America's notables have lain-in-state and other ceremonial events occur in the Rotunda, uppercased and, alongside the Oval Office, the Rotunda is the most iconic and honored room in the nation's capital. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The argument that United States Capitol Rotunda or Capitol Rotunda is somehow the official name would appear to labour under a number of unsubstantiated assumptions:
 * 1) That the rotunda has officially been given an official name despite no evidence from sources as to who, what, when and where this officially occurred. When I first asked about a date, the response gave a date of 1793. A subsequent response has referred to the building that occurred between 1818 and 1824.
 * 2) That an official name is capitalised because it is official.
 * 3) That because the name used by the Architect of the Capitol is capitalised, it is both the official name and a name that must be capitalised. This in itself is a somewhat circular argument and a fallacious argumentum ad verecundiam. It would assume the absolute authority and correctness of the Architect of the Capitol that is not established but might be established through sources addressing the first point. It also ignores that government agencies are known to be prone to unnecessary over-capitalisation for terms of art, emphasis or distinction (which we don't do per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS - see also WP:SSF). It would also assume that such capitalisation is somehow ipso facto an official name just because it is capitalised.

However, a search of Google books here reveals numerous congressional documents (eg -, , , and ) where the rotunda is commonly referred to as the rotunda of the Capitol. The premise that Capitol Rotunda is the official name of long standing is readily disproven. Ngram evidence provided above would also support that rotunda of the Capitol is the more WP:COMMONNAME.

If the premise to WP:IAR is that we should prefer the capitalised "official name", Capitol Rotunda, over the uncapitalised name indicated by the prevailing WP:P&G, then there is no substance to such an assertion. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your post and reasoning is why a panel of closers is needed. Maybe one closer wouldn't check to see that your links are from the 1860s or from 100 years ago. Or wouldn't check the 28 page references and the External link, or the present naming standard. Hopefully a three-panel team will. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I asked when it was given an official name and the vague responses I received gave a date of 1793 when the office of the Architect of the Capitol was established or dates of construction between 1818 and 1824. If the assertion is that this is a long-standing official name, dates subsequent to these disprove the assertion. However, a google books search here evidences that rotunda of the Capitol is still being used in Congress documents - eg and  and . To paraphrase Oscar Wilde the assertion Capitol Rotunda is an official name is quite exploded. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please click on the references used on the article itself. Either 'United States Capitol Rotunda', 'Capitol Rotunda', or 'U.S. Capitol Rotunda' is used when the room is named. See the numerous Architect of the Capitol links, and and links such as the Associate Press which lowercases 'rotunda' when used alone then uppercases the proper name 'United States Capitol Rotunda'. You seem hung up on 'official name', as if Noah Webster and John Quincy Adams sat in Congress and debated on a name. To be repetitive and try to explain the sources which concur with the proper name to you again: the name of the site is the responsibility of the Architect of the Capitol, who also uppercases National Statuary Hall (another famous room of the U.S. Capitol). These rooms are uppercased as proper names by these sources and officials. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I did not raise the argument that we are dealing with an official name.
 * The notion of official name as an argument for uppercasing was introduced here ... the official name is "consistently" uppercased
 * It was then raised as part of the rational to WP:IAR: Also consider the extremely important official name ...
 * There is nothing wrong with using the official name ...
 * It has been made a central tenet of the assertion that we should WP:IAR: Yes, that's what WP:IAR is for, to ignore the rules if doing so improves the encyclopedia. Does mirroring the official name by uppercasing United States Capitol Rotunda improve Wikipedia? Yes, very much ...
 * I am delving into whether there is any substance to the assertion that we are dealing with an official name. You seem hung up on 'official name' ... reads like a deflection and the introduction to an old time dance - the Potomac two-step perhaps). Now we have the assertion that the Architect of the Capitol has sole unfettered responsibility for naming the rotunda (and for that matter, everything else on the hill) because they are responsible for the maintenance of the complex and Noah Webster and John Quincy Adams were too busy doing other things. Sounds like argumentum ab auctoritate based on an improbable assertion of authority. The Architect of the Capitol uses capital letters. Capital letters are used for proper names. Therefore, when the Architect of the Capitol uses capital letters it is a proper name and also the official name. This sounds very much like a circular argument. It is also based on the false premise that capital letters are only used for proper names, when they are often used in English for emphasis or importance. If the Architect of the Capitol determines the proper name and official name of the rotunda, then every official congress document that uses a different form or capitalisation is incorrect because the Architect of the Capitol is the single unquestionable authority on what it is called by divine right. What the Architect of the Capitol uses is the correct and everybody else is wrong? The whole proposition that we should WP:IAR and the premise it is based on is risible (or is that wisible?). It is so absurd, it is worthy of Monty Python. Perhaps it has involved some watery tart emerging from the Potomac waving a sword in the general direction of Architect of the Capitol? As an argument, it is devoid of life. It is an ex parrot. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not knowledgeable enough to trade Pythonisms with you. So will just say that we are certainly at an impasse. I believe United States Capitol Rotunda is a proper name, and so do the people that have the most responsibility over it, just like the Capitol Visitor Center treats it as a proper name. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2024 (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.
 * I think both sides have good arguments and don't have a strong opinion either way – leaning toward capitalization – but don't start the article with a useless tautology that the Capitol rotunda is the rotunda of the Capitol. Capitalized or not, this is uninformative and must be removed or rewritten. Reywas92Talk 14:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe start a new section about the opening sentence which, as far as I've checked, has been stable since February 2009. Its wording seems fine, although it would fit even better under its use as a proper name, as it covers the name of the topic and then goes on to describe it well (tall and central, terms not used for all rotundas) and then mentions and links two relevant articles. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose not a proper name. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is, and your comment at 04:09 was preceded by another RM oppose at 04:08 and followed by an edit on another page also at 04:09 (so the closers should assume that you read all the arguments, clicked on and studied the sources, and wrote three comments within a minute) which is why a close of 'commonsense exception' called for in WP:IAR seems appropriate to uppercase the name of this iconic space. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You're kidding, right? You're casting WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:HOUNDING editors' contributions now? Surely, you do not believe that editors will always read through all of an RM's arguments beyond the nom, and certainly not in a discussion with this many wall-of-text comments (4,200 words, according to wordcounter.net). It would be foolish to think so, nor does any policy recommend or require this. Some editors have lives outside of Wikipedia, and I certainly do not have unlimited time to edit this website. Usually, if editors believe that a new !voter is missing something, the appropriate next step would be for them to fill them in on the gist of the opposing arguments, not acting in bad faith and questioning the validity of !votes.
 * As for the rest of your reply, your response to "not a proper name" was . Okay ... yeah, not very convincing. If you can elaborate on what you mean by this being an IAR case, that would be more helpful than making snarky comments such as . InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Then why throw in an Oppose if you didn't want to put the time in to study up on each side of the issue? This seems, to me at least, a reasonable commonsense request or requirement. It's literally the reason why long discussions are held, to debate the issues, and why would we do that if long-time influential editors such as yourself don't bother to read them before commenting and attempting to strike the nomination down. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I read your opening statement and was not persuaded that this was a proper noun. I then very quickly glanced at the other !votes, and the only person who had !voted "support" said something about "grammar and history", which didn't really make sense. So, I !voted "oppose" because in my view, it is clearly not a proper noun. If you had additional arguments that you think every !voter should know beforehand, you should have added them to your opening statement. Now, despite my asking, you have yet to explain why exactly you think this warrants an IAR situation, so that is unlikely to change my !vote. I will also say that the argument that "Rotunda" is treated as a proper noun by the Architect ... 's website isn't really relevant. For what it's worth, the U.S. government's style guide specifically says to use lowercase. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What you're saying is that every new reason for uppercasing should have been added to the nomination after the fact? I didn't realize that was how statements and discussions such as this are handled, and thank you for educating me about that. IAR is needed here because the lowercase editors (usually the same people at these kind of discussions) come across with sentences from guidelines and essays that, like you, ask the closers to disagree that the uppercasing used by the individuals in charge of both the Capitol building and its Visitors Center, the uppercasing used for the Rotunda when a major personage is lain in state, and the proper name of one of the most iconic rooms in the United States is somehow incorrectly used by all of these individual. Uppercasing has plenty of support in the media, as outlined above. In order to assure that the minor guidelines and rules don't impede this logical move, the policy IAR ignores all of those rules and essays and gets to the point: that uppercasing this iconic space improves the encyclopedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)