User:Andrewa/Capitalisation in article titles

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Common names of bird species

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

Cat and dog breeds

 * British Shorthair

Car models

 * Morris Major

Others
If there are more than two or three in a similar subject area, consider creating a new subheading
 * Industrial Revolution - Not relevant, that's clearly a proper name
 * Agrarian revolution (a DAB page)
 * Neolithic Revolution
 * British Agricultural Revolution
 * Scottish Agricultural Revolution
 * Cultural Revolution
 * Certified General Accountant
 * Royal Court used in running text in Wikipedia

Discussions where both views are aired

 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)
 * To me it seems like having a few specific guidelines for article titles would improve consistency, while consistent use in running text within articles is less easy to achieve and also less important.

Policies and guidelines

 * Manual of Style/Capital letters
 * WP:AT
 * Article titles Use lowercase, except for proper names The initial letter of a title is almost always capitalized by default; otherwise, words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text... (bold indicates subheading)
 * Article titles (shortcut WP:DIFFCAPS) Titles of distinct articles may differ only in their detail. Many such differences involve capitalization, ...

Requested moves

 * Talk:IPhone 5S Should it be 5S or 5s?
 * Talk:Scientific revolution Should it be Scientific revolution or Scientific Revolution?
 * Move review/Log/2014 March Black crowned crane and two other bird species, RM closed as move to uncapitalised, MR closed as Moot. Deferred pending wider RfC on bird names.
 * Talk:Registered professional accountant Registered professional accountant or Registered Professional Accountant

Essays

 * User:Peter coxhead/English species names as proper names analysis by a professional linguist
 * Specialist style fallacy Nutshell: Wikipedia has its own set of guidelines for article layout and naming. Facts on a subject should be drawn from reliable sources, but how content is styled is a matter for the Wikipedia community.

Lists of links to previous discussions
''This should just link to these lists, not reproduce them here. Any links there that are important belong in the sections above.''