Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 25

MOS:JOBTITLES for mayors and Lord Mayors again
Regarding the recent discussion of capitalization of job titles in the form of "List of mayors of X" or "List of Lord Mayors of X", please note that I have filed another RM request at Talk:List of mayors of Finsbury, since the outcome of the RM discussion at Talk:List of Lord Mayors of Birmingham resulted in an undesirable direct conflict between the format of our "List of mayors of X" and "List of Lord Mayors of X" articles within Category:Lists of mayors of places in England and Category:Lists of mayors of London boroughs. It would be nice to resolve this, so participation in the discussion at Talk:List of mayors of Finsbury is hereby encouraged. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The RM closed, against the capital letters.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * However, we still have uppercase for the various "List of Lord Mayors of X" articles, which is inconsistent with the formatting of the "List of mayors of X" articles. See Talk:List of Lord Mayors of Birmingham for the Lord Mayors. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct, we had two RMs, where the participants made essentially the same arguments, but they were closed with opposite results. So, the take away is ... the term "Lord Mayors" is to be capitalized while regular "mayors" is not.  (We may not like the results, but that is what the results are). Blueboar (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Third RM is now open to resolve the conflict between the previous two: Talk:List of Lord Mayors of Birmingham. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We can blame the guideline, which comes down squarely on both sides. It tells us to lower case "king" and "French king," but to upper case "King of France." Did a troll vandalize this section at some point and it just never got corrected? Great scott (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked into the history of this section and found that the "King of France" claim goes back to primordial Wikipedia. At one point, it was referenced to "Chicago Manual of Style 15th ed., 8.35; The Guardian Manual of Style, "Titles" keyword." These are references are both bogus; Neither of them say anything relevant. Both sources come out elsewhere in favor of lower casing job titles. See CMOS 8.21 and GMOS "Job titles." Great scott (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lack of the definite article before "King of France" does suggest the phrase is indeed "treated as a proper name", but I wonder if such a practice is common. Nardog (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A title should be capitalized when it used as a substitute for a personal name: "The Earl of Sandwich will be here shortly." Perhaps that's what the author was trying to say. Great scott (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And the later RM is now closed: "Moved to List of mayors of Birmingham etc.", with an exception because of an article collision (a merge discussion is required about the List of Lord Mayors of London, List of mayors of London, Mayor of London, Lord Mayor of London mess).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  00:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Overcapping of "Group" in horticulture
Please see Talk:Cultivar group.

Summary: This is something I've been meaning to address for several years. Every time I go back to the Cultivar group article, I find that the symbol "Group" (with a capital-G), which is used in actual scientific names – e.g., Solanum tuberosum 'Desirée' (Maincrop Group) – has re-invaded the article's plain-English running prose, e.g. A Group is usually united by a distinct common trait .... Even in its lead sentence. Worse yet, this is being done in innumerable articles on plants, plant products, and plant parasites. I did a couple of hours of sourcing on the talk page (hopefully some of it will be useful for something else – I formatted it in citation templates) to dispel this WP:Specialized-style fallacy. It's a use–mention distinction failure, like changing material a unit of measure to use the symbol for the unit as would be used in an actual measurement, e.g. changing The light-year is a unit of length used to express astronomical distances to The ly is a unit of length .... This "A Group is ..." style has spread here because ICNCP 's publisher writes that way and advocates that others do so. Telling WP how to write plain English in our articles about plants is beyond the remit of the ISHS, and WP doesn't use their house style. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Some follow-on discussion, about single-quotes around cultivar names ('Golden Delicious', 'Yukon Gold') is at WT:MOSORGANISMS, ff.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  01:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC on capitalization of job titles

 * 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.

WP:JOBTITLES currently offers us conflicting advice with regard to capitalization. A general rule is stated that titles are “common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically.” This includes “king” and “French king,” but not “King of France,” at least according to this puzzling example: “Louis XVI was King of France but Louis XVI was the French king." This example goes against the advice of The Chicago Manual of Style, which gives "King Abdullah; the king of Jordan" (8.21) and “Charles I (king of England)” (16.98). This mistake has been in the Manual of Style for a long time. It at one point, it was supported by bogus CMOS and Guardian references. In the archive, I found a history of editors puzzling over this passage, but no one who could explain what it means or where it came from. Various editors have, in good faith, interpreted the “King of France” example to mean that Wikipedia style is to upper case titles. This interpretation is in opposition to the rule the example is supposed to be illustrating. I propose that we resolve the conflict by removing the bulleted section with the “King of France” example. Great scott (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The RFC author is a CHECKUSER BLOCKED AS A SOCKPUPPET ACCOUNT. RFC participants are invited to continue or terminate the RFC as they see fit. Alsee (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The example isn't all that puzzling to me... "King of France" is a specific title applied to one person at a time, while "French king" is generic. But if that example causes confusion, I would suggest replacing it with something like "Duke of Cambridge" (plural "Dukes of Cambridge") for the specific title, and "an English duke" (plural "English dukes") for the generic. Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Take another look at the example. Both "King of France" and "French king" refer to a specific person, namely Louis XVI. "King of France" is capitalized, not because it refers to one person, but because it is a "correct formal title," whatever that means. Great scott (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes... King of France" is a specific title, a proper noun, while "French king" is a generic description''. Blueboar (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we are looking at different guidelines? The one I am looking at says: "When the correct formal title is treated as a proper name (e.g., King of France; it is correct to write Louis XVI was King of France but Louis XVI was the French king)." The stress here is on whether or not the title is correct and formal, leading the reader to associate lower casing with incorrectness and informality. Great scott (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "French King" was never a title, it was a description combining a national adjective (French) with a job description (king). King of France, King of the Franks, and King of the French were all formal titles applied to the French king at various times.  -- Jayron 32 12:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * About a month or so ago, I tried to get clarification on this topic. Lack of participation & disagreement among those who did participate over to capitalize or not capitalize, was frustratingly unsuccessful. The inconsistency is really bad at the US state governors & lieutenant governors bio articles :( GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a few thoughts... The lack of participation might reflect the fact that this is something that the broader community does not see a need to be consistent about. Could it be that the community feels that, as long as we are consistent within any given article, there is no need to be consistent across the entire project?   Also, a lot depends on the specific title.  We may be trying to devise universal "rules" for something that is not universal.  Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see this RfC as addressing the project wide vs article by article question. What we have here is a rule illustrated by various examples, some of which follow the rule and others that do not. It's poor draftmanship. I have a collection of style manuals and lower casing titles is a pretty standard rule that they all seem to agree on. Great scott (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh? I think the examples follow the rule... the specific title (King of France) is capitalized while the generic descriptive phrase (French king) is not.  That seem clear enough to me. Perhaps any confusion is due to disagreement over what the rule actually is (or perhaps disagreement over what it should be). Blueboar (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * George Pataki uses "...53rd G overnor of New York" & Eliot Spitzer uses "...54th G overnor of New York". But, David Paterson uses "...55th g overnor of New York" & Andrew Cuomo uses "...56th g overnor of New York". This is quite common inconsistencies. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant consistency among style manuals, not politicians. Why is "King of France" more of a specific title than "French king"? I think it may be time to consider the possibility that the distinction being made is just gibberish. Is CMOS wrong to lower case "king of Jordan" and "king of England"? Great scott (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Because French king is not a title, any more than French bread. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it in terms of right and wrong won't bring a satisfactory conclusion. The fact that there are inconsistencies between style manuals means that it's fine for our style manual to have gone one particular way on this issue. Primergrey (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Primergrey: absolutely right. Aside from the unusual context in which WP articles are styled (requiring some kind of centralised guidance), no publisher woud need its own MOS if there were a high level of consistency in external writing and among external style guides. CMOS occasionally doesn't even follow its own advice (though they have made spotty attempts to clean that up, progressively—see the newly released 17th edition). I see inconsistent reasoning just in this thread. Tony   (talk)  01:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @Tony1: I notice that you wrote a Beginners' guide to the Manual of Style. Here is what you have to say about the capitalization of job titles: "Generic versus title. Obama is a 21st-century American president (generic), Three prime ministers shook President Obama's hand (generic prime ministers but "President" is a title); * " Unlike the actual MOS, that's simple, concise, consistent, and makes sense. You are misleading those beginners! Work on it some more. Great scott (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I vote to replace all three bulleted examples with Tony1's version of the guideline, as quoted above. Great scott (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

There's another subtlety about the example Louis XVI was King of France. If it's correct to omit a determiner here, and not write instead "Louis XVI was the king of France", then "King of France" would be classed grammatically as a proper noun phrase rather than a common noun phrase, and so would be capitalized. What this example shows, I think, is that, unfortunately, capitalization in contemporary English cannot be reduced to a simple set of guidelines. I would write: Peter coxhead (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Louis XVI was King of France – proper noun phrase, specific title Louis XVI held at the time
 * Louis XVI was the king of France – common noun phrase, generic title
 * As King of France, Louis XVI had the power to ... – proper noun phrase, specific title held at the time
 * Like all the kings of France, Louis XVI had the power to ... – common noun phrase, generic title
 * She saw the King of France walking towards her – examples like this seem to be becoming increasingly disputed. Grammatically, "King of France" here is a common noun phrase, shown by the determiner, but it's a weak proper noun phrase in that semantically it refers to a specific individual. She saw the King walking towards her – to me the same argument applies, but in other discussions when strong or weak proper noun phrases are reduced to the head noun, it has been repeatedly upheld here that capitalization should be removed. Thus I would write Sutton Park is now in Birmingham. The Park has an area of ... whereas the consensus has clearly been to de-capitalize the second occurrence of "park".
 * The [k – if this means a specific person, then it's a weak proper noun phrase and I would capitalize it, but if it means any king of France, then it's a generic title and I would not capitalize it. One way of conceptualizing the distinction (which I used to use in teaching computational linguistics) is to imagine a robot trying to decide whether or not the phrase refers to a stored image of a particular person.
 * You think an initial "the" changes the capitalization? That's a new one on me. What about "Louis XVI was French king"? The section we are considering compares that format X of Foo to the format Fooian X, as Blueboar ably pointed out above. It's not making a point about the use of "the." Great scott (talk) 09:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur with Peter_coxhead, word for word, which surprises me. I expected to have some kind of quibble, given the number of examples, but I even agree with his assessment of where usage is shifting, and why some of these are common versus proper (and strong versus weak). Our only divergence seems to be habitual; I would never today write "The Park has an area of ...", though I often used to, at least for words less everyday than park ("The Foo Bar Foundation was founded in 1950. The Foundation is ..."). Style guides increasingly advise against this, when they cover it at all (some might still go for "She saw the King walking toward her"; the cases are distinguishable in at least three ways, but I don't recall if any of CMoS, NHR, etc., ever get into it). I would just add to Peter's list Louis XVI was a king of France, for completion. Great_scott: It would be Louis XVI was French king, if anyone ever used such an awkward construction; more likely "Louis XVI was a French king" or "Louis XVI was the French king", depending on intent/context. In either case it's a description, containing a common noun and a proper-name-derived adjective; it's not a title.  Anyway, I also agree that Tony1's tutorial wording is better, but it doesn't cover every nuance; we'd need to use it as a base, and either add to it in situ, or add a bullet or two after it or something. Radical idea: There is, however, a  approach. We have a "down style" here (default to lower case for everything unless there's a reason to capitalize), and we could really stick to it.  We could simply be clear that we capitalize such titles only a) when the title is prepended to or surrounds a name ("Count Dracula", "King Louis XVI of France"); b) when the title stands in for a specific individual's name ("President Trump went to meet the Queen [i.e., Elizabeth II] but was turned away at the Buckingham Palace gates."); and c) when discussing the office/position as the thing itself ("The role of Vice President of the United States has shifted markedly in the last 200 years" – and do this last thing only for high office, not for things like "Her responsibilities as Peoria city attorney included ...").  Do not capitalize otherwise.  If it comes after a name ("Louis XVI was the king of France who ..."), is plural ("Three dukes of Cambridge in a row had gout"), is adjectival ("a new presidential candidacy"), or whatever other circumstance, then just lower-case it. (I think this would affect none of Peter's examples except the first one, rendering it as "Louis XVI was king of France".) This would not maximally please all of the Proper name (philosophy) people and traditional style sticklers (including me), but it would make things much simpler here and reduce the presently continuous and circular disputes about this stuff.  Regardless, I do agree with the OP that the current wording is potentially confusing to a lot of editors and may be why there's so much dispute about this. It's s understood by some but not by others, so one revision or another is in order.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So what about "In 1815, Welsley was made Duke of Wellington"... do we now down case "duke"? I think we need to get some input from the nobility and peerage wiki project... as this will impact their articles a lot. Blueboar (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Good idea to alert relevant projects. Hopefully there's not a lot of ours and theirs involved though. Primergrey (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @Blueboar: The rule is that when a title substitutes for a personal name, it's upper cased. That happens so often with Wellesley that people think his name was "Wellington." In this case, the author gives the title as a title, a separate and distinct thing from the personal name. So I'd say lower case "duke." Great scott (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, his name did change to Wellington (upon being granted that title)... but I understand what you mean. What does that have to do with the capitalization of "Duke/duke"? Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And Duke of Wellington is overwhelmingly more common. This ngram minimizes the difference; many of the hits for duke of Wellington are scanning errors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just popping in to say that I concur with SMcCandlish's analysis and recommendations. Deor (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I also think SMcCandlish should get a free hand. I don't necessarily agree with his analysis or proposals. But he can't make it any worse than it is now. Great scott (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Would prefer an ear; my chest full of hands is already overflowing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "In 1815, Welsley was made Duke of Wellington" would be a "keep the caps" case, because it's treatment of the title as the thing in and of itself, like "The role of Vice President of the United States has shifted markedly". But: "Welsley was not the most respected duke of Wellington in history – the third and seventh dukes of this title were supported as claimants to the throne – though he was a well-respected peer, even among other dukes, during his lifetime", or whatever [just illustrating form; I am not looking up actual historical details]. There are people who would capitalise every case of "Duke" in that, and even "Peer", and that style is not helpful on WP. The distinction is basically a form of words-as-words, or mention-versus-use, matter.  It's the difference between "SMcCandlish does not have the Administrator bit, and has never run for Arbitrator, at the English Wikipedia" and "SMcCandlish is not among the English Wikipedia's administrators or arbitrators."  And: "Trump's surprise election as President of the United States", versus "Trump is a controversial US president".  It's capitalized when the title/role itself is under discussion (and is one that is apt to be treated as a proper name), not when it's being used as a descriptor or classifier.  On the proper name matter: we need not capitalize titles even when used in front of names when it's something like "According to assistant manager Herman K. Essell, the assault occurred at 11:46 pm." – i.e., something most people aren't apt to think of as high office. This style is increasingly favored even in business and news (but not marketing) writing, e.g. "according to executive director Chris Ng", versus "according to Executive Director Chris Ng"; it's just plain easier to read when it's not all capitalized. The caps are mostly used for titles-discussed-as-such material: "Ng was promoted to Outreach and Advocacy Director (roughly equivalent to a vice-president of marketing), then later selected by the board as interim then permanent Executive Director (a role previously named President until Hidalgo's resignation)."  PS: One way to look at it is that if a particular string could be interpreted as a title-as-such or as descriptive, and the reader has no reason to care about the distinction, treat it as a description and lower-case it.  We just DGaF what, in these examples, the exact formal title in HR paperwork might really be for Essell or (in "according to executive director Chris Ng") for Ng; we care about the generally understood role. Various companies, especially in the computer and Internet industries, have silly invented job titles, like "UI Evangelist" and we shouldn't use them WP's voice at all, because they're confusing to readers and are an NPoV problem.

The style in your example "...not the most respected duke of Wellington in history..." is taking the principle of minimal capitalisation too far, outside of common usage as shown by this ngram. A Duke of Wellington isn't like a king of France or a president of the United States. A peer's connection to the place name in his title is often very minimal; the town of Wellington, Somerset, shouldn't be given undue prominence in a sentence about Dukes of Wellington. Whereas "the third and seventh dukes" and "even among other dukes" both seem fine to me. Similarly, Prince William is in no real sense a duke of Cambridge but he is a Duke of Cambridge. Ham II (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That appears to be preposition confusion, between of and from. "Of" is rarely used in the same sense as "from" in modern English, and almost never when confusion could result. Such titles do not presuppose (or imply) that the person bearing them is actually from (born in, resident of, etc.) the place in question. This is most especially apparent in the UK (also the locus of almost all disputation about such titles), where some titles not only go back many centuries without residence, but were sometimes intentionally reserved for non-residents (e.g., "Prince of Wales", the history or at least legend about which is one of outright trickery of the local population into accepting a foreigner). In short, I don't think anyone is ever going to misinterpret the example "not the most respected duke of Wellington in history", especially in a construction that is entirely about dukes of Wellington, not about Wellington the place, as meaning anything approaching "dukes who happen to have come from Wellington".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

"correct formal title??!"
I know I'm opening up a hornet's nest here, but of all the "clear as "mud-ness" of this guideline, arguably, the worst and most contentious is this phrase "correct formal title." Can't count the number of disagreements I've personally experienced over this.

It seems to me all 3 words are in play. A "correct title" is not necessarily formal. As in "French king." A formal title is not necessarily correct. As in "The United States President." And when discussing nobility titles, just how far do we need to go to satisfy all three words? Is the difference between "Queen of England" and "English Queen or queen" really all that relevant went the individual's actual "correct formal title" is: "Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith!" What the hell are we supposed to do with that? Even shortened, isn't the country now called the "United Kingdom" and not "England" - or "Great Britain" - making even "Queen of England" not the correct formal title anymore?

Also what about officeholders? As I've had to say many times, "Secretary of State" is actually not the correct formal title. It gives no country designation. Just as "Governor" gives no state designation. According to the rule, they are common nouns. So even though "U.S. Secretary of State" is more useful, isn't the correct formal title "Secretary of State of the United States of America." And if you omit "of America" isn't that no longer the correct formal title?

So is seems to me that some clarity and guidance on this particular issue is desperately needed. Otherwise, I fear we might as well just chuck the whole thing and adopt a "some proximity" rule. Which, effectively, is precisely what we have, de facto, right now. X4n6 (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the phrase "correct formal title" refers to the practice of lower casing a low ranking title given informally (maintenance worker Joe Smith). If so, the example is poorly chosen. Both "King of France" and "French king" are pretty correct and formal by this standard. Great scott (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * A "formal" title would necessarily be "correct", so I would drop the latter word, which I suspect was inserted for emphasis, rather than because it was needed. Is "Secretary of State" not the formal title of that office, as given in statute law or in other sources? It's capitalized throughout the text of its own article. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's nothing to go by, as it would effectively make every article that deviated consistently from our style guidelines unable to be brought in line with them. Primergrey (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it could be correct for 2 reasons: 1) As I mentioned above, it gives no designation regarding organization. Is it "Secretary of State" of the United States, or of any of the 50 U.S. states which also have that officeholder? 2) What do we do with contradictory guidance from official sources? While we do have "Secretary of State." by contrast, concurrently, we also have "secretary of the Navy." So now what? X4n6 (talk) 09:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Dhtwiki that "correct formal" is redundant. Another issue here is that "correct" is basically meaningless (and is not synonymous with "official", "accepted", "common", etc.). We need to stop using "correct" with regard to style matters (I excised a few instances of it from MoS pages the other day). There is no Institute of English Language Authority that dictates rules of the language; the closest thing to "correct" from WP's perspective is what modern style guides, dictionaries, and linguistic works say about the usage of something.  Moving on: Great_scott keeps equating "King of France" and "French king" but they're not the same thing; the latter is a description, the former is treated as a formal title (more precisely, it's an English translation of a compressed version of a formal title in French, that English-language RS use as if a formal title). We shouldn't be capitalizing "things that some people may interpret as titles" unless:
 * A. RS consistently treat it as a formal title, or a canonical shortening of one (e.g. Queen of the United Kingdom, or in a clear enough context even "the Queen", for a much longer complete title of Elizabeth II, and US President and United States President and, in clear context, President, for the full, formal President of the United States of America); and (not "or"):
 * B. it is either:
 * B1. prepended to or surrounding the name (President Trump, King Louis XVI of France); or (not "and"):
 * B2. the title itself is under discussion ("The Duke of Norfolk title passed to ...").
 * This isn't rocket science. All we really have if the chaff is blown away is a conflict between people who recognize that WP (like Chicago Manual of Style, NHR/Oxford, Garner's, etc.) has a lowercase-unless-really-necessary-to-capitalize approach, and people who want to capitalize every occurrence of something no matter what the context, largely in imitation of British press style with regard to peerage and nobility titles.  The answer to the conundrum is WP:NOT: WP does not use news style, regardless of topic. People should follow MOS:CAPS and other WP-specific style guides, unless they have a genuine and defensible WP:IAR reason to not do so in a particular case (i.e., in the rare situation that following the rule will demonstrably and objectively, not just maybe and subjectively, make the encyclopedia worse).  The titles material could be rewritten to make the when-to-capitalize cases clearer.
 * I'm not yet entirely convinced that "correct" and "formal" are inherently synonymous. I'll give two style examples, followed by a title example: A Roman Catholic archbishop could be styled "His Excellency." That's formal for a bishop. However "His Grace" is correct for an archbishop. In the U.S., non-Anglophiles routinely refer to a British monarch as "His/Her Royal Highness," or "His/Her Highness," which are formal for royal princes/princesses; but incorrect, as the correct style is "His/Her Majesty" for a king/queen.
 * You seem to be replying to me, and I said myself that they're not synonymous, so it's unclear to me what your point is. Especially with insertion of material about whether Americans know the difference between "Her [Royal] Highness" and "Her Majesty", which is just a non sequitur in this discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, is "President of the United States," while formal, correct? I would argue no, as the formal name of the country is the "United States of America" - so the only correct, formal title would be "President of the United States of America."
 * Beyond that, I do agree that a style guide ignored is a sad thing, indeed. And I support this one. But, as has been said more than once on this page, WP is unlikely to ever elevate its guide to the level of policy. So we can take whatever wonkish, pro-MOS view we'd like. But if that which we wonk over lacks teeth, then the entire enterprise seems effectively neutered - or at least, academic. X4n6 (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But what about inconsistency in the area of "53rd Governor of New York" & "54th governor of New York"? GoodDay (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well... one option is to let go and accept the inconsistency. Blueboar (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed and amen. I'm especially done with that particular broken record. Likely, because NO policy or guideline re: consistency from article to article has EVER been presented. Seems an illusory goal at best on a project of this scope. Because of that, WP is likely an OCD nightmare. X4n6 (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Having glaring inconsistencies between articles looks unprofessional. No guideline or policy is necessary to understand this. Having a professional-looking encyclopedia is a stated aim of Wikipedia. Therefore... Primergrey (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Meh... Having inconsistencies within an article certainly looks unprofessional... having inconsistencies between articles goes mostly unnoticed (unless you are explicitly looking for those inconsistencies). Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Claiming no guideline or policy is necessary, strikes me as just a lazy way of admitting no guideline or policy exists. Especially, on this project - where there is a guideline, policy or essay on virtually everything. But more importantly, this is a volunteer project: engaging users of wildly varying skillsets and journalistic acumen; involving literally thousands of registered users; and millions of unregistered ones; spanning over 5.4 million articles. So first, explain how to achieve consistency, under those conditions, before saying how important that is. Then explain, if it's so important, why there are no policies or guidelines addressing it. X4n6 (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "'No guideline or policy is necessary to understand this". Misquoting people strikes me as a lazy way of making your argument. Primergrey (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Is "understanding this" vs. "is necessary" really a misquote - especially when no quotations were used? No, it's a paraphrase. But isn't your complaining about it just another "lazy way" of deflecting from the fact that you still provided no answers for either of my legitimate questions? So let's not fall any further down the rabbit hole and stay on topic. See Blueboar below. X4n6 (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No question was asked of me, and to imagine that anyone posting here needs to answer anything is beyond presumptuous. Primergrey (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "First explain...", "then explain..." But you're absolutely correct that you don't "needs to answer anything." But failing to engage collaboratively makes it very easy to dismiss your comments as unconstructive. As does your pointlessly argumentative attitude. X4n6 (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There's another factor here... we need to ask whether consistency is possible. Given that we here at MOS can not agree on whether to capitalize (45th Governor of New York) or use lowercase (45th governor of New York)... we can not expect other editors (those out there, writing articles) to agree either.  We have to accept that our community is divided on the issue.  We can, however, ask that they (at least) be consistent within any one article, and not to edit war about it. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The bios of the Governors of Minnesota are even more frustrating. All but 2 of those articles use capitalization. I tried bringing those 2 lone exception articles in line, but an editor (who refuses to discuss the topic) keeps reverting. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So stop trying... just let it go. Don't let yourself be dragged into a style war over it. Blueboar (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Thanks, Blueboar. X4n6 (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's generic if plural. So "g". Tony   (talk)
 * but It's not generic... its sequential . You only have one at a time. (And only one 46th or whatever... so ...) . Blueboar (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC).
 * It's still generic, i.e. a common-noun phrase. It doesn't magically change into a proper name just because you're talking about two back-to-back rather than in a different order. It's still a plurality context. There is only one Governor of New York, as a conceptual entity, a public office; but there have been many governors of New York.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: "WP is unlikely to ever elevate its guide to the level of policy. So ... that which we wonk over lacks teeth" – Even those who have worked the most on MoS would not support and effort to brand it a policy. It isn't policy material. The difference between policies and guidelines on WP is that the former are required, core necessities for the project to be functional and to produce an encyclopedia, while the latter are best practices that make going about that goal more smooth and practical. You'll see this difference clearly if you read a bunch of policies and then read a bunch of a guidelines. The only parts of MoS that the community has ever felt rise to policy level are already policy (in WP:AT), on the basis that unbridled strife over article titles was destructively disruptive (due to WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policy problems, for the most part), not just a nuisance. MoS lacks no teeth; WP:P&G, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:IAR, and related policies and guidelines don't draw any sort of "disobedience" line between the P and the G. If the community thought that MoS could and should just be ignored at editorial whim, it wouldn't be a guideline, and it would have have existed and been followed all this time, including as part of the WP:FAC process. What shouldn't happen is a bunch of WP:WIKILAWYER behavior trying to "enforce" MoS or any other guideline as if it's some kind of law. Even our policies are (per WP:IAR) not treated as utterly inviolable (except those imposed on the community by WP:OFFICE to reflect real-world laws, e.g. WP:COPYVIO; those really should have a variant of on them that distinguishes them from policies originated from within the editorial community, but that's another matter for another time and place). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment after the last discussion, I think a discussion at WP:MOSLEDE might be more appropriate. There are enough contextual distinctions for capitalization that I don't think there's a consensus on overall usage now.  It may be possible to find a consensus specifically for the usage in the first sentence of articles, though. Power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There wouldn't be any difference. Leads are not written in a different variety of English from the rest of the article, so the same style would apply.  What we have here is a lack of consensus to change the extant rules (though we probably have one to improve the clarity of the wording, along the lines of what Tony1 wrote in his essay). Yes, there are some editors who wished that a completely different rule applied, or that no rule did, but this is true of every single style matter, and every guideline and policy matter actually; it doesn't invalidate the rules we do have (per second sentence at WP:Consensus).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Another edge case: "the former Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director of the CIA, Victor Marchetti", which I just ran across. There's likely to be a strong desire among many editors to capitalize that lengthy job title despite it not being attached to a name directly (which would be "former CIA Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director Victor Marchetti", which itself is awkward, and can be misread to imply that Marchetti is the deputy director and we have not named the executive assistant to the DD yet). People are apt to miss the distinction between the versions with and without the comma. An argument can't really be made that the title itself/position itself, as such, is under discussion here (as it is in "The role of Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director is ..."). The clumsiness of both constructions can be fixed with rearrangement: "Victor Marchetti, a former executive assistant to the deputy director of the CIA"; that's the style we want and which other mainstream style guides want, so how to we ensure we get it? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the express title sentence would be "When he was in the CIA, Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director Marchetti...". But I agree it's clumsy; however, if you do use it, capitalize. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But the "express" (maximally concise) intent is the very cause of the awkwardness; that version is still apt to be misread. If we stop aiming for concision over clarity and do the opposite, we end up with more readable wording and no urge to overcapitalize: "Marchetti, a former executive assistant to the deputy director of the CIA, [did whatever]."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  00:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

An analogy that might help clarify things
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This may (or may not) help ... but it is worth a try. Let's explore the capitalization for the term/name "union station".  Now, according to our article on union station this term/name started off as a descriptive term, referring to any train station served by multiple rail companies... a station that united these rail lines.  I think that we would all agree that in this context the term is generic and should not be capitalized.
 * However, the term soon began to be used as the name for specific union stations... we have a "Union Station" in Los Angeles, a "Union Station" in Chicago, etc. These are names for specific stations and so I hope we would agree that when referring to one of these stations we should capitalize.
 * So far this seems easy. So let's throw in a complication... how should we capitalize when using the term/name in the plural? Consider the following sentences:
 * "Of all the union stations in America, the one in Chicago is the largest."
 * "Of all the Union Stations in America, the one in Chicago is the largest."
 * The capitalization here is important to understanding what is being talked about... in the first sentence we are using "union stations" in the descriptive (generic) sense. In the second  sentence we are using "Union Station" as a name (specific to stations named "Union Station", even though plural).
 * Now, lets explore the ordinal question... suppose an individual city tears down and rebuilds its station named "Union Station"... we can talk about the 1st Union Station and the 2nd Union Station... in this case the name "Union Station" does not become generic just because we are referring to more than one building. We shouldn't lower case just because we added an ordinal... In fact, lower casing would change the meaning.
 * So... can we apply a similar distinction to terms/titles like president/President, king/King, duke/Duke, etc? I think we can (and should).  While president, king, duke etc can be used descriptively (ie generically)... these terms can also be used as a name (ie specifically)... and using it in the plural (or with ordinals) does not necessarily mean it becomes generic.  Thoughts and comments? Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see the utility of this, since "Of all the Union Stations in America, the one in Chicago is the largest" isn't something WP would ever use. There would be no encyclopedic point at all in comparing the size of three things that just happen to share the same name or partly the same name; we even codify this "don't juxtapose for trivial reasons" principle at WP:TRIVIALCAT and other guidelines.  We might, however, use "Of all the union stations in the United States, the one in Chicago is the largest", if the concept of union stations, in the original sense, were the context of the material.  It would definitely be lower case in that construction. What's really happening here is exactly the same linguistic process involved in some other discussions on this page.  Take this sentence:
 * "Smith worked at Harvard University, then at University of Minnesota, for a total of ten years, before taking a private-sector job with XYZ Corporation."
 * If one rewrote this material, one could come up with a construction about which people may disagree over capitalization:
 * "Smith worked at Harvard University then at University of Minnesota. After ten years at these universities, he took a private-sector job with XYZ Corporation."
 * "Smith worked at Harvard University then at University of Minnesota. After ten years at these Universities, he took a private-sector job with XYZ Corporation."
 * Modern style guides virtually unanimously agree on the former, though between one and three generations ago, the second style was fairly common and sometimes prescribed by the very guides that now prescribe against it. MoS has settled on the lower-case version because it's what the real world is doing, in the aggregate, regardless of the topic.  That a handful of "tradition"-related topics are a bit more resistant to the shift than others is to be expected, and we really have no reason to care.  It would be a total WP:CREEP exercise to try to maintain separate micro-rules on a topical basis. As another example, it's also the exact same thing as "I went to Central Park. While I was in the park, I ran into my friend Jennifer.", versus "... While in the Park, I ran into my friend Jennifer."  The "Park" style is obsolete, mostly found among writers at least verging on elderly. Some have suggested that the over-capping style remains more common among the British, but I've yet to see any evidence of that.  What I do see is that it has retained a vestige of currency only in business writing, especially in internal contexts like memoranda within the same organization (e.g. "There will be a Staff Meeting at 1:30 pm, in the Conference Room."). This is yet another form of capitalization for "signification" emphasis, which WP doesn't do.
 * I don't think that 's example is the same as 's "univerity" example above, and this also has a bearing on what is meant by "generic" in 's comment above that. It's tempting to say that all plural uses are generic and hence not capitalized, but this isn't correct. "Smiths" is a way of referring to "people with the name 'Smith'" and is generic in not referring to a specific entity. So far as I am aware no-one has suggested decapitalizing "Smiths" in this context. Semantically this is no different to using "Union Stations" to mean "stations with 'Union Station' in their name". Using proper names in the plural in this way seems somewhat informal to me, so I would avoid it in Wikipedia; if it was really necessary to refer to "Union Stations" in this sense then I'd write "stations [or places] with 'Union Station' in their name". Provided this exception is taken into account, it would seem correct to adopt as a 'rule' here that if a noun phrase is capitalized in the singular, then when that exact noun phrase is made plural, it is not capitalized. The other 'rule' which SMcCandlish is discussing is that when an entity referred to by a capitalized noun phrase is subsequently referred to using only the head noun of that noun phrase and the head noun is grammatically common then it's not capitalized. Unfortunately such 'rules' require an understanding of English grammar that is clearly beyond that of many Wikipedia editors. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The surname case is distinguishable. If I say "I know many McCandlishes besides me" this could never be rendered with "mccandlishes" because there's no such word.  Even in a case like "I know many Smiths" it could not be rendered "smiths" because the word "smith" (metalworker) has no modern connection to the surname; they cannot refer to the same thing.  In the case of "I have known several mayors of Boston and princes of various royal families" we already know that in fact the lower-case version is well-attested in this exact context and type of construction, even if some people would prefer to write "Mayors of Boston and Princes". They're the same people who would write "When I was at Boston U. and later Harvard, I loved to read in Boston Public Garden. The Garden was my respite from the Universities even when my readings were for classes." The fact that supposed "rules" to sometimes capitalize things like "Garden" and "University" (and "Mayor" and "Prince"), depending on the exact nature of the constructions, are too fiddly for most writers to understand or remember is why they've largely been abandoned, and why WP should avoid them as WP:Instruction creep.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This still misses the point of 's example. There's no semantic distinction between "mayors of Boston" and "Mayors of Boston"; both refer to a set of people with the title "Mayor of Boston". It's just a choice of how to capitalize, and I accept that the modern style to be followed here is not to capitalize. There is a semantic distinction between "union stations" where the meaning is "a set of stations where tracks and facilities are shared by two or more separate railway companies" as per the definition at Union station, and "Union Stations" where the meaning is "stations with 'Union Station' in their name". European union stations are not Union Stations in the latter sense; many American union stations are. Let me reiterate that I am not arguing for capitalizing "Union Stations" in Wikipedia ; I accept (reluctantly) that we should avoid this style because making such semantic distinctions via capitalization is now out of fashion and so not likely to be understood by many readers and editors. If it's necessary to refer to "Union Stations" then we should paraphrase. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But I am not sure we can paraphrase a non-generic plural such as "Dukes of Wellington"... or in "11th Earl of Blandings." These titles are more like "Union Station" than "union station"... in that they are names, not generic descriptions. Blueboar (talk) 11:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, paraphrasing is possible, but not necessarily nice. For example, "Dukes of Wellington" = "holders of the title 'Duke of Wellington'"; "11th Earl of Blandings" = "11th holder of the title 'Earl of Blandings'". Peter coxhead (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, since a case like "11th [e|E]arl of Blandings" is (or is hard to distinguish from) direct discussion of the title as such, in and of itself, rather than using the title in a generic, descriptive, plural way, maybe we could settle on "He became the 11th Earl of Blandings", "Several earls of Blandings died in battle", "She was the first female US Secretary of State", "The idea was opposed by three secretaries of state in a row", "When the President met the Queen in May", "Not every American president has met with the British queen or king of the era", and so on. That also means "He was the 12th Governor of Nevada" and "Only a few governors of Nevada were actually born in that state."  that'll be simple enough to remember and not argue about, assuming it's palatable in the first place. There will remain at least a few people who want to capitalize every occurrence, and those who want to never capitalize unless attached to a name (or directly standing in for one).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

To my eyes using "duke of Wellington" looks rather old fashioned, and it is the style used in EB1911 see for example the EB article on Arthur Wellesley where apart from the first line of the article all mentions of the "duke of Wellington" is with "duke" not "Duke" as similar thing is done with the article Great Rebellion where the style is "earl of Essex", "duke of Argyll" etc. However to my surprise the modern EB article called English Civil Wars uses a similar lower-case style, as does its article on Arthur Wellesley.

I want to pick up on something that User:Great scott wrote "Obama is a 21st-century American president (generic), Three prime ministers shook President Obama's hand (generic prime ministers but "President" is a title)". I thought that the president of the USA was an office not a title. I have noticed the same thing creeping into British English over the last decade or so as British journalists have started to write "Prime Minister Theresa May" rather than "Theresa May, the Prime Minister" or "the Prime Minister, Theresa May".

Overall I agree with position that Blueboar had taken in this conversation. -- PBS (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * One can easily arrive at a different conclusion: it's the opposite of old-fashioned, and Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 was before its time, leading the way. This is supported by the clear shift in other publications: a few generations ago, most style manuals (and there were far fewer) were in favor of capital letters in these and many other constructions, while today they largely are not, unless the title is directly attached to an individual's name.  The material you're quoting from Great_scott is actually Tony1's.  And it's not WP's job to try to "enforce" an original-research position on a philosophical difference between a "title" and a "office".  This is not a distinction that our editors or readers are going to maintain, especially if the sources most likely to hold out in trying to maintain it (namely, British journalism) are giving up. Its more important here to use one style for all these things consistently so editors know what to do, and don't argue about it at lengths like these again and again, year after year. If you want to get technical about it, "President" in the United States is in fact a title as well as a position/office. The proper address for a former US president remains "Mr. President", as if still in office, and (e.g.) "President Obama" if making a third-person introduction, as at a speaking engagement; if he were not present one would write or say "former President Obama" in most contexts, for clarity. It's an adaptation of the retention of military titles as forms of address for retired officers. I knew the elderly Gen. Doolittle when I was a child [friend of the family, long story], and he was always "General Doolittle", not "Mister Doolittle".  In written form, it'd usually be "Gen. (ret.) Doolittle", or "retired General Doolittle" or "Gen. Doolittle (ret.)", etc., if someone had been writing about him in civilian life while he was still living.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The example about presidents ignores the fact that, by law, former U.S. presidents are styled "President __" for life. The same applies to governors, senators, cabinet members, etc. One's most recent title is customarily used for the rest of your life. Hence "Governor Romney" and "Secretary Clinton." So, it seems to me that a discussion of the law v. a style guide isn't particularly useful. X4n6 (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * By law? By law? Are you joking?  E Eng  06:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, by law. It's called protocol. But you're HOUNDING now? So when was your last block? X4n6 (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I see nothing at that link about forms of address for former presidents, and nothing about any "law" on forms of address for anyone. It's normal when an editor has made problematic edits in one part of the project to see whether the behavior is being repeated elsewhere; in any event this page has been on my watchlist for years.  E Eng  07:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The first sentence on the page: "The body of law, customs and practices governing diplomatic conduct is called protocol." Should be simple even for the most simple-minded. But I don't need to source talk page comments. But your post, as usual, wasn't constructive; and your presence was clearly hounding. You also haven't bothered to contribute to this thread at all. So you can use that specious defense at your newest ANI. Good luck. X4n6 (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * All you've shown is that there is some body of law that governs some part of "diplomatic conduct". The idea that this includes forms of address for former presidents, or indeed for anyone, is just something you made up.  E Eng  07:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Relevance? Zero. Unconstructive and distracting waste of folk's time here? I'll just let them speak for themselves. X4n6 (talk) 07:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Spoken.  E Eng  23:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a form of personal address, and is not codified in any law at all. Even if it were, it would have nothing to do with how third-person encyclopedia material is written. (Failure to understand this same fact as it applies to British titles, which sometimes are matters of law, is exactly why this interminable discussion is still ongoing and why it keeps recurring.) The idea that former presidents should be styled "Mr. President" even has vehement opponents in the real world. Our own article Mr. President (title) cites three of them (though also has a WP:NPOV problem of stating their viewpoint as fact in WP's own voice, and not citing any opposing sources, which are easily found in seconds). Post-scripts: The US Dept of State doesn't create laws. Someone expressing skepticism isn't WP:HOUNDING. Showing that an attempt at sourcing was insufficient is the opposite of "wasn't constructive"; it's something we necessarily do every day at Wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The GPO Style Manual thoroughly rebuts your claim. Also, commenting on another user's actions, especially in the manner you did, is counterproductive. There is a backstory you are unaware of. In future, it would be better if you inquire first, before leaping to assumptions. X4n6 (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The GPO Manual of Style is in no way shape or form "law". It is a manual of style for federal publications in much the same way that WP:MOS attempts to be for Wikipedia articles. That there is a legal basis for the GPO to promulgate a MOS does not grant that MOS force of law. older ≠ wiser 12:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * More to the point, this is further misrepresentation of sources. The GPO Style Manual explicitly gives the GPO-preferred style for former presidents as ex-President Surname , with the specific example "ex-President Bush".  It does not contain the strings "Mr. President" or "Mister President" anywhere in it. I don't think this discussion needs any further patent nonsense injected into it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

On the nature of proper names
I will try to shed some darkness on this illuminating discussion. In the first instance, I will address the opening analogy. A proper name is a unique identifier. Consequently, a proper name cannot be pluralised nor (as a general rule) does the definite article, "the", attach to a proper name. However, some noun phrases are capitalised because they are derived from a proper name. Hence, of all the John Smiths in America, the one from Kalamazoo is the tallest. Multiple unique entities can have the same name. Every "John Smith" is unique, even though they have the same name. In the opening analogy, the correct example would be: "Of all the Union Stations in America, the one in Chicago is the largest." (assuming we are referring to the train station and not a trade union office).

It is important to distinguish between a proper name, a proper noun and something which is a discrete identifier by virtue of the definite article ( don't mention the universe ). Proper nouns (nouns which are capitalised) are most frequently capitalised because they are derived from a proper name - in the case of Christian, which is derived from Christ.

Wind back time a bit and it was common to capitalise shortened forms of proper nouns. So, where we are talking about the 9th Battalion, we might write: "The Battalion deployed to ...". WP; however, has chosen to generally deprecate the use of capitals except in the case of proper nouns (and proper names). I am not saying I agree with this fully but it is the nature of the beast. On the matter of a proper name, it is also my recollection that that which is named must be "concrete and tangible". To this extent, a job title is not concrete and tangible, even if it is occupied. It would therefore be correct to refer to the "mayor of Boston" and not the "Mayor of Boston". There are, perhaps, exceptions (as with every rule in English), such as God - and it is way to existential to debate here (whether God is a "concrete, tangible" entity).

There is the matter of a job position also being a title, in which case, it is appropriate (I think) to refer to Mr President or Prime Minister May but the American president, Donald Trump, and the British prime minister, Teressa May. We might also have "Mayor Smith of Boston" but not " the Mayor of Boston, John Smith ". It is pertinent to note that the definite article attaches to the job title and this is an indicator that the full job title should not be capitalised and "the mayor of Boston, John Smith", preferred.

The Case of the Duke of Wellington is perhaps a little more complicated. As pointed out before, Arthur Wellesley assumed the name "Wellington". Certainly, in reference to Wellesley as the "Duke of Wellington", it is much the same as "Prime Minister May". The trick, though, might be to disentangle the specific from the generic. Certainly, "dukes of Wellington"... or in "11th earl of Blandings" would appear to be more correct, where that part which is derived from a proper name (viz Wellington and Blandings) is capitalised. These are not proper names, even if, in the first case, they refer to a collection of discrete entities called "Wellington" and, in the second, a very specific earl of Blandings.

Again, though, we come to the point where usage might dictate deviation from the application of "rules". Must we choose to say "the President of America", "the Queen" for Elizabeth II (or similarly for any other monarch) and "the Pope" for His Holiness? If so, these specific (and other limited) instances should be identified and prescribed as acknowledged exceptions.

MOS:CAPS can be somewhat problematic. It defers, in the first instance, to usage in sources to determine if something should be capitalised. To some extent, this tends to impose, rather than negate "specialist style fallacy". My preference would be to defer to linguistic theory in the first instance. The biggest fallacy is the notion that a "discrete" entity referred to by a discrete "name" is ipso facto a proper name. Linguistic theory; however, requires that a name be assigned by a person (or entity) entitled to do so (eg, a parent or owner). It also allows that "the collective" and not some specialist group, can accept (over time) that a common name becomes a proper name. It is at this point that that sources might come into play. The trick is to disentangle specialist style fallacy from linguistic theory and balance this against "general usage". To this end, MOS:CAPS should provide clear guidance that facilitates minimal disruption to WP. To this extent (this discussion and others similar) MOS:CAPS is failing. I am not saying that I agree with MOS:CAPS but this is how I analyse the issue within the constructs that are in place. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a reply about as long as the original post, but I doubt anyone wants to wade through it other than Cinderella157:


 * You're arguing from a Proper name (philosophy) perspective; MoS addresses these matters from a Proper name (linguistics) one (i.e. a proper noun and derivatives thereof that remain capitalized, or which can lose the caps and lose treatment as proper names if sufficiently genericized in a particular context). These two views are essentially incompatible (the philosophy approach has an inviolable isness component that doesn't match linguistic description of actual usage). As MoS is a work about language  not causes, reliance on the linguistics meaning of "proper name" is pretty much guaranteed.  This doesn't make everyone happy, but it is what it is.  Really, linguists and philosophers need to come up with distinct terminology, and when they do we can use it, with less potential for confusion. Until then, we just have to write about it carefully. There's a reason that when MoS mentions proper names it links to the article on the linguistic concept (though it probably does not do so at every single occurrence, especially if two are close to each other in the page). The philosophical meaning of proper name is entirely about the underlying meaning and signification, while the language-focused sense of the term is more about conventional form, though meaning plays a basic role. Similarly, presence of the definite article isn't, linguistically speaking, an indicator of whether something is or is not a proper name (or capitalized, putting "proper name" terminological disputes aside) in English.  Nor is it generally; how definite articles are used varies widely from language to language (e.g. "love" as a concept is l'amour in French, and a similar construction in many other languages, but in English we don't use "the love".  Likewise, an organization may or may not have a "The" at the start of its name, but one might be more obligatorily included (or omitted) in another language. We got into that last month on this page in more detail, so I needn't belabour the point.  "[I]t was common to capitalise shortened forms of proper nouns. ... 'The Battalion deployed to ... – Yes, we already covered that above. This style is no longer recommended in major style guides; ours did not come up with the idea of lower-case for such material.  It isn't the case that proper names have to refer to something concrete and tangible, or pretty much nothing from the worlds of religion, spirituality, and myth could be proper names, nor could anything fictional or otherwise imaginary, nor anything purely theoretical or conceptual. I think we (you and I, and consensus generally) are in agreement that "the Mayor of Boston, John Smith" is bad form as is "Donald Trump, the American President".  No philosophical proper-name argument need be used to arrive at this conclusion. It's sufficient to simply observe as a linguistic matter that this form is obsolete and disused, while the form "Mayor John Smith", "President Donald Trump" (direct attachment to the name as a pronominal) is currently treated as something to capitalize.  So is a reference to at least a high office as such, as in "Donald Trump does not seem to treat President of the United States as a gravely serious role, but simply another feather in his self-promotional cap."  There's disagreement on how far to take that.  Some of the philosophers are convinced that every single job title for a specific job at a specific workplace is a proper name, because it has a unique referent.  This is not reflected in typical writing practice.  But the line is fuzzy.  A whole lot of people want to capitalize something like Secretary of State and Solicitor General and Minister of Transportation and so on, at every occurrence; but virtually no one wants to do this with "night shift manager" or "assistant editor", often not even when it  attached to a name.  This right here is the fountain from which most of the disputation probably flows, and it's a place where we're going to have to have an arbitrary rule, from among the dozen or more available rules in different style guides, or the arguments will never cease.  As for "the President of America", there's no such title, and this isn't an expression we'd ever use. Even if it were, it wouldn't be capitalized like that (see previous discussion of "the French king"). WP is also not going to use "His Holiness", because we can't in WP's own voice declare someone holy; all these aggrandizing titles are off the table.  MOS:CAPS does have its clarity/interpretation issues.  The WP:SSF one arises frequently as a short-term, localized dispute, but is quickly put to bed in most cases, because when MOS says to defer to usage in sources it doesn't mean "in specialist sources, and @#$% the rest".  Due to WP:SECONDARY, it means general-audience sources first and foremost. We had a huge RfC about this, after approx. eight years of squabbling, and that seems to have settled the matter: specialist sources reliable for factual details about a topic are not magically the most reliable sources for how to write  the topic for a general audience, and are often pretty much the opposite. The "linguistic theory" stuff you're talking about, however, isn't linguistics, but philosophy and prescriptivism. E.g. the entire concept of "a name ... assigned by a person (or entity) entitled to do so" is completely foreign to descriptive of usage, regardless of the ultimate origins of a usage.  "MOS:CAPS should provide clear guidance that facilitates minimal disruption to WP." Most definitely, and it largely does that.  There are just still a few places where it needs copyediting for clarity. There are also a few places like this one where some classes of cases are not covered, or not covered distinctly enough for people to agree on interpretation.  Sometimes this is just poor policy writing, but sometimes its a result of MoS's hands-off-unless-necessary nature, in that MoS doesn't have a rule it doesn't need to have to forestall dispute, and it leaves all style matters by default to editorial discretion. This is why MoS is a tiny fraction of the size of New Hart's Rules or Chicago Manual of Style, which are comprehensive and for multiple writing contexts.  Over time, some more "do as you like" matters become instead codified into new "do it one way" rules here to deal with recurrent disruptive or at least time-wasting disputes.  We're eventually going to have to do that for job titles, and draw some firmer capitalization lines.  The present discussion surely will not do it, as it's turned into another train wreck. It will likely require a focused RfC.


 * — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether my position is philosophical or linguistic, I believe it leans to being more linguistic. When debating "the universe" a couple of years ago, I came across a useful onomastic text. It is my error in saying "the President of America" when this should be "the President of the United States" and I was not suggesting WP use "His Holiness" in articles but rather, capitalising in "the Pope", when referring to His Holiness might be "demanded". I did mix up my usage of "proper noun" and "proper name". A proper noun is a single word, while a proper name can be a noun phrase. From the WP article on proper nouns: "proper names in their primary application cannot normally be modified by an article or other determiner (such as any or another), although some may be taken to include the article the". It also states: "Not every noun or noun phrase that refers to a unique entity is a proper name." I would observe that the fallacy this indicates is a common error. My point about naming is that I can't walk up to a bridge and declare it be called the "John Smith Bridge" and then expect everybody else to call it that - not unless I am the mayor or governor and have the acknowledged right to assign the name. This has a place in dealing with WP:SSF. My observation is that MOS:CAPS tends to defer to sources as the primary test of a proper name. My closing point was that WP might be better served if MOS:CAPS relied on linguistics as the primary test of a proper name and sources as the secondary. On this, we appear to disagree.

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * More to the point, the basic premise here is to deprecate capitals. Within this construct, there appears to be no reason to capitalise a job title (except for that part which might be associated with a place or the like). A proper name refers to a "unique entity". A job may be held by a "unique entity" but is the job title a "unique entity"? Only at the highest level of a structure, is there "any" degree of uniqueness. An "assistant secretary of state" is not a unique entity. Why should "secretary of state" be capitalised but not "assistant secretary of state". I reiterate the common fallacy that a noun phrase referring to unique entity is not ipso fact a proper name. The warning, Post hoc ergo propter hoc, comes to mind. The course seems fairly clear, except for the hammering at the door that demands some titles be capitalised: the Queen, the Pope and the President. These exceptions would need to be codified to limit any creep to be more inclusive. I think I have fairly clearly demonstrated (above) how this can be consistently applied. FWIIW Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your position doesn't lean toward linguistic. You may be personally thinking in terms of language, but the conclusions you're coming to are firmly on the proper name (philosophy) side. "A proper noun is a single word, while a proper name can be a noun phrase" isn't correct in either the linguistic or philosophy approaches; whether there are multiple words or not is arbitrary and meaningless (and for some subjects even varies by dialect and register). I'm not sure why you're quoting from Proper noun; the quote reiterates some of what I've already told you in my longer reply (especially about "the" and about having a unique referent). What you're saying about randomly walking around renaming things and others not going along with you doesn't have anything to do with proper name distinctions, but is about idiolect and protologism versus actual communication (shared language). In a great many cases people have walked up to things and renamed them and people have gone along with it, most often when the renamer has a conquering army lined up behind him. Not related to this thread, though it's tangentially related to MoS in the sense that we don't permit randomly capitalizing stuff just because it seems like a name to someone; we apply this in various ways, e.g., with respect to descriptive article titles, disambiguations, Wikipedian-created translations of titles of works, and other WP-invented phrasing. We've never desperately needed to have an MoS line item about not capitalizing such things in general, but it probably wouldn't hurt to add one to MOS:CAPS, since "don't capitalize what you made up" seems like WP:Common sense but might not be as common as we'd like. (The discussion above includes at least one example of someone wanting to capitalize a description ("the French king") due to confusing it with the actual title ("King of France", in conventional, reliably sourced English translation of the Modern French, Middle French, etc., versions of the title, e.g. Roi de France, which is also rendered with roi when used generically and not attached to a name as a title, just like in English). Just drawing a line at heads of state and heads of world religions, as you suggest, and lower-casing every title below this is one possible approach, but is not the one WP has selected, because "there have been several queens of England who were sovereigns, not just wives of kings of England" is now normal modern English (it wasn't in mid-20th-century English). The distinction modern style guides seem to most often agree on is whether it's used as a title with a name or not (a narrow form of use versus mention distinction).


 * A longer response than I expected to make but it makes the case that job titles are not proper names. In a nutshell: job titles are commonly written in title case as a form of distinction and to identify the words that make up the noun phrase. It is a case of the circular arguement fallacy - because we capitalise job titles, they are proper names; therefore, we must capitalise job titles. Job titles do not conform with the linguistic "properties" of a proper name in multiple ways. It is better to acknowledge an arbitrary decision to capitalise certain job titles than to labour under the false (and inconsistent) premise that job titles are proper names.

Yes, the barrel of a gun is another acknowledged way of conferring naming rights.

I did say that, as a "general rule" the definite article does not attach to a proper name. And yes, there are exceptions, though proper names "cannot normally be modified by an article or other determiner". At Proper noun: "Because they are used to refer to an individual entity, proper names are, by their nature, definite; so a definite article would be redundant, and personal names (like John) are used without an article or other determiner. However, some proper names (especially certain geographical names) are usually used with the definite article." Further, at Proper noun: "proper nouns are limited to single words only (possibly with the), while proper names include all proper nouns (in their primary applications) as well as noun phrases". If I am wrong (as you say) then the article needs rewriting?

In arguements over caps, the most common statements I have seen in support of caps is something the effect of: "there is only one" or "it refers to this particular one" - which is actually an arguement for caps for distinction and falls to the fallacy that a specific referent "implies" a proper name. "Not every noun or noun phrase that refers to a unique entity is a proper name." A job title is a name but is it a proper name? I submit not - another fallacy, that name is synonymous with proper name and yet we also have common names. Another "property" of a proper name is that they are not descriptive (though again there are exceptions which are more generally historical) - hence Oxford. Many job titles are inherently descriptive. I believe the observation was made that job titles are written in title case as a way of identifying those words that make the noun phrase that is the job title - a form of distinction which might also be achieved by italics or quote marks. The fallacy is that: "since they are capitalise, a job title is a proper name", yet in multiple respects, linguistics (onomastics) tells us they are not proper names - hence, Post hoc ergo propter hoc. If we acknowledge this, the focus of discussion can shift. The current debate is circular in nature - because we capitalise job titles, they are proper names; therefore, we must capitalise job titles. Recognising the fallacy of the circular arguement is empowering. We can acknowledge the general advice to deprecate capitals but make a conscious choice to permit certain exceptions - because the Pope, the Queen, the President (and anyone else we choose to acknowledge) are "important people" and "deserve" to have their job titles capitalise (or whatever other arbitrary case is made) - not because of a fallacy that these job titles are proper names. You have already indicated quite arbitrary criteria by which job titles are capitalise. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree with the circularity assessment. And, yes, the article does need work; even part of what you quoted from it is flat-out wrong: "proper nouns are limited to single words only". This is obviously wrong because nouns are not limited to single words only; various compound nouns are spelled fully compounded, hyphenated, or as two words, depending on an arbitrary rule in the style guide of the publisher in question, and dictionaries list all three forms. I think whoever wrote that material was trying to draw a distinction between a) things that operate as unitary nouns (which includes some noun phrases) and b) things which are noun phrases consisting of a noun and a modifier, where then combination is not synergistic and doesn't convey a unique meaning when they're combined. And they failed. Then they confused their idiosyncratic notion of proper nouns as one category, in distinction to a second category, proper names, in linguistics, and this isn't a distinction a linguist would make, even given a definition of proper noun that was correct.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * A special case can be made for compound nouns (where it is largely a matter of how something is written), some linguists may not make the distinction, and some linguists (like me) may get a bit sloppy, particularly when the attention is on the meaning rather than, say, syntax or morphology, but linguists (e.g. the grammarians Huddleston and Pullum) do make a difference between proper nouns and proper names. See, for instance "The distinction between proper names and proper nouns", : "The central cases of proper names are expressions which have been conventionally adopted as the name of a particular entity. ...In their primary use, proper names normally refer to the particular entities that they name: in this use they have the syntactic status of NPs. For the most part, however, they can be nominals that are part of larger NPs: such nominals may be attributive modifiers or heads that are accompanied by dependents that are not part of the proper name itself. ... Proper nouns, by contrast are word-level units belonging to the category noun. Clinton and Zealand proper nouns, but New Zealand is not. America is a proper noun, but The United States of America is not – and nor are The United States or United and States on their own. ... many proper names have alternant versions, and one type of alternation is between a formal name with a common noun as its head and a less formal version with the common noun omitted: The Tate Gallery v The Tate.""


 * Also see, for instance section 5.60, : "We may therefore draw a distinction between a PROPER NOUN, which is a single word, and a NAME, which may or may not consist of one word.""


 * --Boson (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess linguists are arguing about this more now than they were when I was in university. The blanket "one word" assertion is still obviously wrong (for any cases where "foo bar", "foo-bar", and/or "foobar" are all attested and accepted spellings of the same compound noun and it's a name), even if someone who should have remembered that got the blanket statement published. (This seems inadvertent on Quirk's part; H&P's "word-level units belonging to the category noun" obviously includes indivisible compound nouns while it excludes nouns with modifiers buzzing around). The case probably doesn't come up frequently since most compound nouns with variant compounding are common nouns; probably mostly in cases of transliteration into the Latin alphabet in a particular way, e.g. Lao Tzu vs. Laozi.  At any rate, I was not suggesting that there's no distinction (syntactically) between "America" and "United States of America"; the latter is a proper noun phrase, the former just a proper noun, while both are proper names (and the former a nominal constituent of one when used in the latter). The utility of the distinctions seems to turn toward futility when abbreviation is introduced; in Quirk's and H&P's formulation, "Federal Bureau of Investigation" would not be a proper noun, while "FBI" apparently would.  After some coffee and some mulling over, I think the distinction some linguists are making in one narrow analytic context between proper nouns/names in this sense isn't applicable to MoS concerns, because we're talking about a higher level of semantics, where any noun operates as a NP, regardless whether it's a single word or an multi-part phrase. If MOS is ever getting into morphological surgery, it's probably making a mistake. I think the closest we get to that is at MOS:DASH and it gives some people headaches.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a one-author attempt to fuse various approaches, Theory and Typology of Proper Names by Willy van Langendonck (2007, De Gruyter), synthesizing everything from Early Modern philosophy approaches to at least 5 linguistic approaches, plus psychological ones, including neurolinguistic, up to around 2005. Substantial parts are previewable at the Google Books link.  Thanks to Cinderella157 for the pointer. Some of it is secondary material (basically an extended literature review), but it's interwoven throughout with the author's attempt to produce a "unified field theory" for proper names.  Not really sure what to make of it.  It's at textbook pricing, so I'm not going to buy it, but I may to try to get ahold of one through inter-library loan.  What I skimmed had some clear problems, but also some good ideas. The language is too technical for our purposes (including at Proper noun and Proper name), but something in it might hint at ways to improve MOS:CAPS in the long run, and at very least the detailed review of prior work is a source goldmine for the articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:SMcCandlish, I see that this circular fallacy also underscores the basic guidance given by MOS:CAPS in general. It leads to some of the other fallacies I have mentioned and what I have observed to be problematic in the application of MOS:CAPS as it is written. My solution would be to make the "properties" of proper names more explicit as well as the common fallacies - with usage as a secondary test. I also acknowledge that changing this part of the MOS is problematic. Perhaps a essay to support the MOS is a step in the right direction? You are also clearly more conversant with this than me. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Would need more specifics on what problems you're seeing. A helpful general approach to this stuff these days is to abandon all hope of true/right/correct/perfect, and go with what's most useful, consistent, memorable, and stable, whenever there are well-attested differences in usage and "rules" (sometimes national, but as often along profession/register lines, like journalism, academia, business, government).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Ordinals
May we please have clarification on what to go with here. 1) Name was the 45th G overnor of State or 2) Name was the 45th g overnor of State. GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Name was the 45th g overnor of State. IMHO Cinderella157 (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree... adding an ordinal does not mean we change the capitalization... since we would capitalize "Donald Trump is the is the President of the United States" I think we would also capitalize "John Adams was the 2nd President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States". Same with "Governor of Massachusetts" and "15th Governor of Massachusetts". However... "The Governor of Massachusetts was the 3rd governor to leave the conference due to safety concerns".  Blueboar (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If it were up to me I'd go with Cinderella157, but there's no consensus to go one way or another. This is one of those times where I'd be happy to flip a coin and have it be either way instead of the mishmash we have now. Inconsistency makes us look sloppy. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   03:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree that consistency is good, but it isn't always achievable. As I said above... what I think we can agree on is 1) "be consistent within an article", and 2) "don't get into style wars over it." Blueboar (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * On this, I would also say: "John Smith is the governor of Massachusetts" but "Governor Smith arrived ...". On the otherhand, I acknowledge that Americans expect their presidents to be capitalised as much as the Brits expect it of the Queen and Catholics, the Pope. There is the fallacy that because a job title is commonly (often) capitalised it must therefore be a proper name yet job titles frequently have determiners (such as any or another) attached to them and are often pluralised - all of which indicates that job titles are not proper names. On the one hand, there is an "expectation" that senior job titles are capitalised and, as User:SMcCandlish points out, the issue is where to draw the line - Acting Trainee Temporary Assistant Junior Garbologist Third Class? Obviously, the smaller the set of exceptions is, the easier it is to manage. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 2. The current consensus is "the 45th governor of [State]"; this hasn't changed. It's a common noun in this construction, and reliable sources do not consistently treat the title as a proper name unto itself. The sprawling discussion above has presented some arguments (including from me) to potentially capitalize in this instance as one of various arbitrary compromise lines that could be drawn, but there's clearly no consensus to adopt it, and the majority of respondents are plainly against it. The point of disputation on this particular matter is the confusing third bullet at MOS:JOBTITLES.  It's resulted in argument about whether particular titles "are" proper names, rather than what the intent of the bullet point is, to address treatment in a particular context  a proper name – which was never the practical conceptualization of the issue, due to the sharp disagreement between proper name (linguistics) and proper name (philosophy) approaches to defining "proper name". Even head-of-state titles like President of the United States and King of France are not treated consistently capitalized in reliable sources, except when used in front of an individual's name.  The way to fix the third bullet is probably to replace the "proper name" wording (and it has also been objected to in other ways, like the weird "correct formal title" phrasing). I'll propose a revision below.


 * 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.

RfC 2: Specific proposal to revise the third bullet of MOS:JOBTITLES

 * 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.

Given all that's been said in the general-discussion RfC above, it is proposed here to change the third bullet of MOS:JOBTITLES, on when to capitalize titles, to the following, including some additional examples (to make it clearer there isn't a different rule for civic and noble titles on Wikipedia):
 * When a formal title (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description:
 * Richard Nixon was re-elected President of the United States on November 7, 1972. But: Nixon was the 37th president of the United States. Nixon was one of the more controversial American presidents. Controversial US president Richard Nixon resigned.
 * Louis XVI became King of France and Navarre in 1774, later styled King of the French (1791–1792). But: Louis XVI was a king of France. Louis XVI was the king of France when the French Revolution began. French king Louis XVI was beheaded.

The present wording of this line item is: It has been termed confusing and disputed, in multiple ways, including: perceptions of self-contradiction; conflicts between linguistics and philosophy conceptions of the meaning of "proper name"; complaints that "correct formal title" is PoV or simply meaningless; lack of guidance about cases of the form " Name was a/the title "; and implication that every occurrence of something like "King of France" should be capitalized regardless of context (e.g. use as a common-noun phrase or plural). [This is not my personal opinion, but a summary of debate above and of previous discussions.]
 * When the correct formal title is treated as a proper name (e.g., King of France; it is correct to write Louis XVI was King of France but Louis XVI was the French king)

Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, and executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically: Mitterrand was the French president or There were many presidents at the meeting. They are capitalized only in the following cases:
 * When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon
 * When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g., the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II
 * When the correct formal title is treated as a proper name (e.g., King of France; it is correct to write Louis XVI was King of France but Louis XVI was the French king)

When an unhyphenated compound title such as vice president or chief executive officer is capitalized (unless this is simply because it begins a sentence), each word begins with a capital letter: On October 10, 1973, Vice President Agnew resigned and Gerald Ford was appointed to replace him. This does not apply to unimportant words such as the "of" in White House Chief of Staff John Doe. When hyphenated, as Vice-president is in some contexts other than U.S. politics, the second (and any subsequent) elements are not capitalized.

Honorifics and styles of nobility should normally be capitalized, e.g., Her Majesty, His Holiness, but see also.

I believe this proposal will be about the best compromise we can achieve any time soon, while the current wording is definitely confusing to a lot of editors and leading to recurrent dispute, while off-Wikipedia style guides do not give consistent advice on the matter, though they mostly lean in this direction, and the proposed solution should be stable for a long time. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Short comments

 * A good attempt to explain a complex issue in simple terms.  I disagree on some of the examples (especially the ordinal, which I believe should be capitalized), but I appreciate the attempt. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you remove the ordinal it's still the same case as "preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article)"; and you can replace that ordinal modifier with another adjective, e.g. Nixon was the longest-nosed president of the United States., if that helps make it clearer.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I think you're correct that something like this is the best that can be hoped for at this time. Deor (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support this or similar effort to make a more clear rule for when to cap titles. I have no particular axe to grind on what the details are, so I support SMcCandlish's proposal until there's another alternative that seems to gain favor. Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Certainly a good attempt unlikely to be bettered. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as an improvement of clarity. I would also like to nominate SMcCandlish as Right Honourable Chief Editor of MOS:CAPS. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See the scene in LotR where Frodo offers the One Ring to Galadriel. >;-)   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I somewhat wonder about the definite article (as it seems to prescribe saying "The earl of Sandwich will be here shortly" and "Please let me introduce you to the king of France"). —BarrelProof (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Both moot and mute (I think) since such construction is unlikely here? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to sure it's unlikely. See the example included above as "Louis XVI was the king of France when the French Revolution began". I wonder whether lowercase should only apply after an indefinite article. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see reply above to Blueboar, and additional bit in the "Longer discussion" section. This whole proposal hinges on a compromise: that we're just treating modifiers as modifiers; if we make one hard-to-remember arbitrary exception, then every camp with its own preferred style will want other exceptions, and we're right back to the mess we're in now.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: the [e|E]arl of Sandwich example – Ah, this is why the entire section is quoted in the collapse box; that case is covered by a rule not being revised here: "When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g., the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - Long-overdue improvement, which will de-cap many occurrences that I have found grating but left alone because the guidance was so unclear. Whether it will bear further improvement remains to be seen; it may need to be dumbed down more if "lasting peace" is to be achieved. Plenty of editors don't read at SMcC's level, and sometimes I'm one of them. And there may be nuanced cases that aren't addressed and could be with little WP:CREEP. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Unlike the current guideline, this proposal gives the reader a straightforward answer the question, "Does Wikipedia upper case job titles?" On the downside, I don't think either of the examples are properly capitalized. They tell us that a particular person was president or king, in which case the title should be lower cased. A better example of a "title or position in and of itself" would be "the French monarchs used the title "King of France and Navarre" from 1620 to 1792." IMO, this section can be omitted. I don't think it is necessary for the guideline to delve this deeply into the nuances. Great scott (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC) CHECKUSER BLOCKED AS A SOCKPUPPET ACCOUNT. Alsee (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Replied in "Longer discussion" section.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Disregard above: Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner In ictu oculi (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Summoned by bot. Thanks for injecting some clarity with your well reasoned and clear explanantion SMcCandlish ☺. BTW I disagree with your assertion that Nixon was the longest-nosed president of the United States.. Have you seen the schnozz on William Henry Harrison? Jschnur (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I was still in diapers when he was president.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  22:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support clearly an improvement. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, makes sense to me. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: it certainly cannot hurt to provide more specific examples – Sb2001 talk page 22:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd prefer capitalization, personally. However, if non-capitalization has a better chance of getting consistency across bio articles? then so be it. GoodDay (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Longer discussion
A note from the "drafter" (more like assembler) of the proposed version: I'm not trying to capture the Truth or what's Correct – sources radically conflict on such notions, which are prescriptivist PoV anyway – just to distill it to a "rule" that is simple, cohesive (self-consistent), also consistent with our general approach to capital letters, and which is what at least some of the sources are doing. On the ordinal case, I can't think of a reason that ordinals would be a special exception among modifiers, once the "ah " moment comes that this can be put in modifier terms and a cloud is suddenly lifted. I also didn't originate or inject the view that "the king of France shouldn't be capped", but it's advanced so often I gave up resisting it, especially as it's consistent with other "genericization", like use of an indefinite article, and pluralizing. It's also a concession that can be made to the philosophy set without getting the linguistics set to scream and throw rocks, and without dumping the linguistic approach to proper names entirely in favor of the philosophical one, which people without degrees in philosophy generally don't understand. >;-) In this, I've been dusting off my old lobbyist and policy analyst hat, and gritting the teeth for real compromise in hopes of "a lasting peace".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Still have objections... but I do recognize when I am out voted. I predict that there will be a lot of opposition once we try to implement this.  And, while it may reflect the consensus here at MOSCAPS... I seriously doubt that it reflects community wide consensus.  I guess time will tell. Blueboar (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely possible. I "advertised" this at WP:VPPOL for this reason, to get broad input now rather than later. Anything like this will always have opponents. Hell, ever single item in MoS has opponents, and probably same goes for all the rules in other guidelines and policies. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a compromise, and a consistency thing. The reasoning is that all the following constructions are arrived at, without changing the semantic role of the title in the sentence, simply by being a little more concise at each step: "Nixon was re-elected to the office of President of the United States in 1972" (unmistakably addressing the title/role as such), "Nixon was re-elected as President of the United States in 1972", "Nixon was re-elected President of the United States in 1972", and (with a loss of clarity) "Nixon was President of the United States again in 1972". If we say to capitalize only in the first case (or only in the first two, etc.), then the instant anyone does a minor concision edit, a capitalization fight erupts for no real reason. All those cases are distinct from "Nixon was the president of the United States in 1972", which has a modifier and is a genericization of the title to a common noun phrase, both in some linguistic and some philosophical approaches to proper names. It's the same case as "Nixon was the guy I most admired in 1972"; you can't (idiomatically in English) say *"Nixon was guy I most admired in 1972"; the presence of the indefinite article modifies the role the string plays (it doesn't properly play one at all in the second case); it's just harder to see the change with a title than with a longer phrase. You can also clearly see the difference between "I am Communications Director", the assertion of a title as such, and "I am the communications director", a description, a statement of role (which might not even be the actual job title; I picked this example on purpose because my actual job title was Director of Activism and Outreach when I said "I'm the communications director", using wording that would translate, in others' senses of an org chart's layout). The idea here is to make this as easy to use and as hard to foul up as possible. Most style is arbitrary at one level or another, and no one style encapsulates that which is the Truth or most Right. For this "does it have a modifier?" approach, it takes a long time to explain, but very little space to express as a rule to use, thus it's simple to remember and apply. PS, re the words-as-words case, e.g. "Nixon used the title President of the United States": It's so obvious that this qualifies that I didn't want to browbeat people by including such an example. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So the article “the” is controlling capitalization here? I interpreted the proposal as suggesting that “US president” and “king of France” should be lower cased while “President of the United States” and “King of France and Navarre” get upper cased. If you can substitute "president" for "president of the United States" with no change in meaning, the capitalization should be the same. Great scott (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And it would be; "Donald Trump is somehow the president of the United States, and this still feels surreal every day."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * When office or title is used as a substitute for a person, it often as a matter of style rather than necessity, and comes back to what you and I have discussed in another place: elliptical main clauses. The use of "the President" or "the president" is a matter of context where "the President" in a paragraph that has already mentioned a man who hold the office is probably a substitute e.g. "President Macron" while "the president" is probably a substitute for any or all holds of the office "the French president". If the paragraph had previously mentioned President Trump then "the President" or "the president" will probably not be read to imply  "President Macron" or "the French president". One can of course write in a very systematic way and always use "President Macron" throughout, but that is likely to be considered poor style (boring).  I find this to be a common problem on Wikipedia because of the nature of the project with two clause sentences and pronouns. "Prince Rupert crossed the bridge and then went into the town". Another editors adds "he", "Prince Rupert crossed the bridge and then he went into the town", a third editor adds a companion  "Prince Rupert and his brother, Maurice, crossed the bridge and then he went into the town". -- PBS (talk) 09:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's already addressed by the "When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g., the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II" clause, in the material in this section not being proposed for revision.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  04:12, 14 October 2017 (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.

Discussion on title versus sentence case for article/chapter titles
Please see Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  17:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Right On Time / Right on Time
Should an album title be Right On Time, or Right on Time? I opt for the former because "on time" is being used as an adjectival phrase, but this isn't covered by the exceptions to the 'lower case if it's a preposition' rule that are currently listed ("Particles of phrasal verbs"; "The first word in a compound preposition") or by the rule covering "adjectives". Also see Right On Time, which currently is a redirect (with an attempted explanation) to Right on Time. I've already moved my creation – Right On Time (Harold Mabern album) – but would like confirmation before moving other pages. EddieHugh (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no, it should be Right on Time. Simply a two-letter preposition and its object. Deor (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And if people don't stop desperately trying to find excuses to over-capitalize trivial words in song titles, we need to change the rule to state to not capitalize them even if an argument can be made that the usage in question isn't strictly prepositional. We have wasted way, way too much time arguing about the exact semantics of song titles just so someone can get a "Like" or an "On".  At any rate, EddieHugh's position isn't grammatically plausible.  "Right" in this sense is synonymous with "exactly", "precisely", (or "barely", "just", depending on context), and is not a noun, so it isn't possible for "on time" to be an adjectival phrase modifying it.  It's obviously a prepositional phrase; structurally, "right on time" it is identical to "finally in custody", "proudly from Botswana", and "just under the weight limit" (adverb pertaining to an "understood" subject and verb, then a preposition, then a noun or noun phrase as object of the preposition).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  19:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So what's your grammatical analysis of this one? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Deor; I later found it in a grammar book, under "idiomatic phrases". I got it wrong and was making a polite enquiry to check, that's all... I wasn't "desperately trying to find excuses" for anything. EddieHugh (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't mean you in particular. We just get more push-back against MOS:CAPS from people who want to capitalize every single word in song titles than from almost any other quarter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  10:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I am involved in a move discussion right now regarding a book title that contains a four-letter preposition, and the main arguments of the opposing side are "lowercasing that word looks odd" and "everyone else capitalizes it". Darkday (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All these people who are confused by or argue for a different set of rules... and it keeps on happening... I see an obvious solution. Not that I'm suggesting it, of course. EddieHugh (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup... obvious, but unlikely to happen. Blueboar (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

These debates are recurrent because lots of solutions are "obvious", just to different mindsets. The first item in that list fails to be obvious to some editors because they have failed to conceptualize a difference between WP's encyclopedic facts and internal WP governance; they're the same people who keep calling WP:POLICY pages "articles" and demanding that sources be cited in them, when the "source" for them is editorial consensus (though often informed, when feasible, with talk page citation of relevant off-WP material – not always feasible because there is no third-party source that can tell us how to best do WP-specific things). Some other reasons are that specialists of various sorts often fail to see the forest for the trees, and have arrived at Wikipedia not just to write in specialized style for specialists, rather than for everyday readers, but are actively seeking to impose norms from their favorite journal, newspaper, magazine, etc. A problematic variant has been the occasional cluster of editors proceeding from a credentialist viewpoint, in which only specialist editors should have any real say in specialized topics, and should aggressively impose external style from specialist works (sometimes tied to promoting a specific organization), to make WP more "reliable" and "reputable" among members of that profession; i.e., they are mistaking WP's purpose as a tertiary, generalist work and are instead trying to jigger it into a secondary collection of specialist ones, subject to their own personal peer review on a topical basis. Still others just treat WP as some kind of "not really a real publication" playground, a huge sandbox, and are resistant to rules being applied to them while they goof off; they're angry that WP's style is not the style they want to use on their blog or their social media posts, or simply what they learned twenty or forty years ago in 7th grade. Fortunately, all of these misperceptions and misapproaches are curable, in any editor likely to pass the WP:CIR test; it just takes longer with some than with others. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  06:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) The most obvious one is "follow WP's style guide when writing at WP, just as you would follow that of The New York Times or Nature when writing for that publication."
 * As I frequently point out, even specialist professionals have no difficulty or unfamiliarity with this idea; all of them who write for publication are already comfortable with the idea that they need to check and follow the style guide of the journal, newspaper, book publisher, or whatever they are writing for (or that their editor will adjust their work to conform to it). A minority of them are just intensely resistant to doing so on Wikipedia, for a range of reasons, covered (probably non-exhaustively) below.
 * 1) Another is to mimic the presentation on the album cover, product packages, movie poster, or whatever, an approach that has been rejected by consensus and isn't practical (most of them would end up in ALL-CAPS).
 * The specialized-topic versions of this idea are a) do at each article what the majority of sources cited so far at that article do stylistically; or b) as a slightly broader "local consensus", have every topical wikiproject make up their own rules based on the journals or fandom websites, or sports news, or whatever that the currently active "members" of each little wannabe-fiefdom happen to be reading (see eight-year "capitalize the common names of species?" fiasco for what a nightmare that leads to).
 * 1) Another (a variant on the last one) is to do only and exactly what the majority of sources do in the aggregate on a categorical level (i.e. by field/interest/genre); this has also been rejected and is impractical, for numerous reasons, including:
 * No one understands what would be "required" for any particular topic other than specialists in it; specialists even within one subfield rarely do anything with consistency, but more often are just promoting a particular house style, e.g. of AMA or Billboard magazine, or The Economist, or whatever; differing specialties' styles would continually clash, hour after hour, day after day, in any of millions of articles in which things that pertain to more than one specialty are mentioned; it would be endless editwarring, not just because of that problem but because the average editor will interpret specialist style idiosyncrasies as errors and fix them; among other problems. These are among the major reasons why we have MOS, MOS:CAPS, and the other MoS and naming-conventions pages.
 * See WP:SSF for a full catalogue of problems with this SPECIALSTYLE idea (including with no. 2, above).
 * 1) Another "obvious" idea, also long rejected as impractical, is to just do what the majority of sources do (if 50.00001% of findable sources do it one way, then WP would do it that way); this is a total fail because it would result in even more stylistic chaos than "specialized style", lead to radical inconsistency from article to article, and be subject to endless gaming and disputes. Even trying to settle a single article name debate, for example, by various search engine results often turns into a train wreck, because the approach is methodologically difficult (and usually unsound), different searches that should seemingly produce consistent results often will not, and much of the data is corrupt (and what is not is incomplete), plus there is no way to balance general-audience versus specialist-audience results. The more obscure the topic, the more it will reflect mostly or even only specialized style, while the more widely known it is, the more likely a numeric majority of sources will have abandoned standardized – and WP-accepted – style for journalese/headlinese sloppiness.
 * A "fallout" example of the latter under such a hypothetical "COMMONSTYLE" regime would be that binomials almost everyone is familiar with, such as Homo sapiens, E. coli, and Tyrannosaurus rex, would lose their italics and probably their consistent G enus s pecies capitalization norms, because the average news publisher and other other non-specialized source doesn't bother with that stuff, and those lower-end but secondary sources will outnumber the specialized ones.
 * Another example: while standardized animal breeds are consistently capitalized in specialized sources, they are not in general print materials. It turns out that N-grams and other research show that the news and other general-audience publications are not consistent from breed to breed in whether they capitalize!  Ergo, we would end up with something like "Labrador r etriever" for one breed, but "German S hepherd" for another, based on essentially meaningless distribution of how many sources did or didn't capitalize a particular breed name.
 * See WP:CSF for the run-down on all the problems with the "COMMONSTYLE" idea.
 * Yes, it might take ages with me, as I still think it's useful to show the sources from which WP house style has been drawn. Whether they are US-published or UK-published or both, to show they are recent, to show what domain they were intended to cover, etc. But sorry for "goofing off" here as if I was still in "7th grade". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting, although you don't mention the obvious solution for album and song titles. EddieHugh (talk) 10:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is...... ? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Follow MOS:CT / MOS:TITLES as we've been doing for a decade+; that would be my answer. When we already have a guideline, the solution already exists.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  11:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah shucks. I was hoping from a road to Damascus moment when Eddie replied. But who knows, maybe you Took The Words Right Out Of His Mouth. Still hoping you'll grammatically unpack the black boxfor us. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe has some other answer. If it amounts to "mimic the logo stylization on the cover" we already know we don't do that, for obvious reasons (it's non-neutral, and most often it would result in SHOUTING ALL-CAPS or Barely Less Shouting Small-caps ).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  17:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In some cases, that might be quite appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Filibustered RM discussion
Somehow, Talk:Tyler, The Creator has failed to come to a numeric consensus (even if the policy one is clear), despite being relisted once already. This should not be allowed to close as "no consensus" since it would lend a false sense of controversy and inspire further re-litigation about capital letters in pop-culture topics (already too much of a source of style-related dispute as it is). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  04:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Merger of scattered and redundant material to MOS:TITLES
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style for details. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  22:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC) See also: — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  00:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles

"Anglo- and similar prefixes" section is original research and instruction creep
I propose compressing the entire MOS:CAPS a short statement that capitalization of these terms is not consistent in the real world, less apt to be capitalized in Canada, and should default to capitalized in other MOS:ENGVARs. All the detailia is patently original research. It's also unhelpful instruction creep, since it's doesn't really advise anything, and there isn't any widespread dispute about this stuff (most editors capitalize these words). Its just someone's pet ideas about usage frequency, which is a moving target anyway, and will also vary widely by context (e.g., lowercasing is far more frequent in a linguistic context than a historical one, regardless of dialect). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  01:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

PS: What material we do keep on this should be merged with anything we have on lower-casing of proper adjectives that have lost all connection to the namesake, e.g. "french fries", and "a platonic relationship"; these are the same kind of exception as lowercasing of "romanization" in linguistics, and the word "italic" in reference to fonts/typefaces. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  01:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure ... I would think a lot would depend on context... It is fairly standard to capitalize “Anglo” when relating directly to England (example: “He fought in the Third Anglo-Dutch War”).. but I could see it lower cased when used as a pseudonym for “white” (example: “He is a prominent leader of El Paso’s anglo community”. Blueboar (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems to be consistent with what I said above (other than "anglo" to mean "white" isn't a prefix, but a stand-alone word, so not the subject of this passage, though within the scope of the suggested merged material). "Anglo" in that sense is typically capitalized anyway, for the same reason "Hispanic", "Asian", "Afro-", etc. are (adjectival ethnonym derived from a proper noun, which "black" and "white" are not, though some sources, especially in the social sciences even capitalize those). The point I'm getting at above is that someone's inserted a bewildering pile of nit-picks that are pretty much just nonsense, and it doesn't belong in MoS. We should encourage capitalization of these, by default, as proper-name derivatives, just like Sino- and Jewish and Californian, but permit (not require) lower-casing in contexts in which RS typically but not always use lowercase. I would think you'd be first in line to support removal of CREEPing style rules and addition of flexibility. :-)   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  07:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Substantive revision of all caps/small caps section
I've done a detailed revision (before and after) of Manual of Style/Capital letters. The major fixes are: Maybe EEng or other regulars can think of some ways to compress further, though I don't think the length is an issue; this is not a section people consult frequently, and it should be sufficiently specific when they do so. Of course, if I have anything wrong, let me know! — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  12:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC); "after" link updated to reflect later tweaks, 05:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Resolved the section effectively WP:POLICYFORKing from MOS:TITLES and, to a lesser extent, from WP:CITESTYLE/WP:CITEVAR.
 * Repaired the section directly contradicting itself about Latin; this mess was replaced with sensible advice that matches actual practice.
 * Because poor attempts to do small caps with templates (where the style is permissible) are often ghastly, offered specific template-related advice for doing it well.
 * Added two missing cases for smallcaps:, and Unicode code point names (certainly much better than huge ALL CAPS – there's quite a bit of all caps for code points in articles still, but various editors have been slowly cleaning it up to use the less visually assaulting small caps).
 * Discouraged use of small caps for acronyms/initialisms (for a very good reason, and the desire by some editors to use that style is borderline WP:PERENNIAL by now).
 * Provided footnotes on why this and why that, to keep the rendered advice list concise.
 * Closed loopholes and resolved vagueness, like the implication that any case of "Lord" in Judeo-Christianity can be rendered as, and the unintended hint that the list of permissible uses for all caps and small caps is just a sampling (i.e., that people can use such stylization 100 other ways just because they think it looks cool).
 * Clearer wording and cleaner markup throughout.
 * Included small caps in the section heading.
 * Make the linguistics-related material sensible to people who are not experts in the field.
 * Flaged a line item about linguistics as needing clarification; WT:LINGUISTICS has been asked for input on this.