This page falls within the scope of theWikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across theManual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style
This page may fall under thecontentious topics procedure and be given additional attention, as it may be closely associated to thearticle titles policy andcapitalisation. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review theawareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
Add new items at top of list; move toConcluded when decided, and summarize the conclusion. Comment at them if interested. Please keep this section at the top of the page.
Talk:Nrx#Requested move 12 January 2026 – use all-caps for this disambiguation page name?Result: Uppercase, as nearly all listed topics are uppercased abbreviations
Talk:Major Labels#Requested move 27 July 2025 – is it sufficiently clear that this is an article about a book rather than a group of companies?Result: Not moved; title is suitable for a published work
Talk:Niviarsiat#Requested move 25 July 2025 – should either "Northeast Greenland" or "Southern Greenland" start with a capital letter?Result: The capitalization question is not relevant to the chosen titles
Talk:Blair Babe#Requested move 4 July 2025 – lowercase "Babe" or "Babes"?Result: uppercase retained (not the primary focus of the discussion and not commented on in the closing remarks)
Talk:F1NN5TER#Capitalization – Should the online persona be called "F1NN5TER", "F1nn5ter" or "Finnster"?Result: Discussion started 24 March 2024 went stale after comments on 4 April 2024 suggesting "F1NN5TER" to be the usual form
Talk:Fullbore target rifle#Major rework – Is it too risky to ask people who are carrying firearms to use lowercase?Result: lowercase "rifle" in most contexts, and other fixes
Talk:1925 Tri-State tornado#Requested move 26 December 2024 – Was this the "1925 Tri-State tornado" or "Great Tri-State Tornado" or something else? (closed, then close withdrawn and reopened after amove review, then closed and voluntarily reopened again, then closed again, thenanother move review, which was closed as "moot" when a parallel RM was closed.)
Talk:Washington (tree)#Requested move 30 April 2025 (18 articles) – if renamed to "[Something] tree", should "tree" be capitalized?Result: Moved to uppercase as nominated, but no clear consensus established on the capitalization
Talk:Fall of Saigon/Archive 1#Names section and capitalisation – capitalisation of Vietnamese language names and capitalisation of their English translations?Result: Archived after comments observing inconsistency, so generally suggesting sentence case for terms in Vietnamese and capitalization for translated named days (e.g. "Liberation Day") in English
Talk:Xkcd#Requested move 29 March 2025 – Should something different be done about the way this article tries to put its title in all-lowercase?Result: Not moved.
Talk:Tri-State tornado outbreak#Requested move 18 December 2024 – Was this a "Tri-State tornado outbreak" or a "tri-state tornado outbreak"?Result: Year added ("1925 Tri-State tornado outbreak"), but no explicit conclusion was expressed about capitalization (an initial move to lowercase was changed by the closer to uppercase the next day), then amove review was opened; closed as "endorse".
Should thespirit and intent ofusually capitalized in sources atMOS:MILTERMS be taken as consistent with the general advice on capitalisation given in the lead ofMOS:CAPS or is thespirit and intent to create a substantially different and lower threshold for capitalising the types of events named.
ConsistentMOS:MILTERMS is part of MOS:CAPS. The opening paragraph of MOS:MILTERMS states:The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized. The general advice in the lead paragraph of MOS:CAPS is often paraphrased as requiring consistent capitalisation. Some have argued thatusually herein means any degree of usagejust greater than 50%. As Firefangledfeathers notes above:It's odd to see an unexplained clash between the general rule and the specific rule, and it's untenable to have the clash be open to interpretation. However, such an interpretation clashes not only with the general rule but the more proximate rule in the lead paragraph at MILTERMS. The issue is not just whetherusually should reasonably be interpreted asgreater than 50% but whether doing so reflects thespirit and intent of the guidance. At multiple places, we are told that thespirit of any P&G is paramount rather than skirting the spirit on some technicality - perceived or real (egWP:P&G,WP:5P,WP:IAR?,WP:PRINCIPLE,WP:MR andWP:LAWYERING). If thespirit of usingusually is intended to create a lower threshold then we would need a substantive reason for doing so.
TheMerriam-Webster definition forusually is:according to the usual or ordinary course of things : most often : as a rule : customarily, ordinarily.This source collates linguistic studies on how various terms (includingusually) are usually perceived as percentages - reporting thatusually is perceived as 70 - 84 percent of the time. It also gives the definition from the OED:In a usual or wonted manner; according to customary, established, or frequent usage; commonly, customarily, ordinarily; as a rule. Those arguing a lower threshold would seize on one part of the definitionmost often as beingjust greater than equal. As with any law, rule etc, the meaning of a definition should be read in the fuller context and a balance of all the parts. Seizing on one part in isolation is the epitome of aWP:PETTIFOGING argument. Considering the definition and linguistic interpretation ofusually, the meaning is consistent with both the general advice in the lead of MOS:CAPS and the lead paragraph of MILTERMS. These are subject to the same conflicting views on whether these are proper names as any other name on WP which is descriptive and take the definite article in prose - unless they are consistently capped in sources.
Many editors are of a view that any name having a specific referent is aproper name that must be capitalised. While a specific referent is a property of a proper name, it is not a defining property since specificity of referent is also conveyed by the definite article (the). If there is anything that defines a proper name, it is that it is not descriptive. However, it is because of these different views that MOS:CAPS relies on consistent capitalisation in sources to determine what we capitalise rather than semantic arguments of what defines a proper name. This is the consensus of the broader community and is reflected by the consensus of a vast majority of (RM) discussions both generally and more specifically for battles, wars etc. As a group, the names identifying many battles, wars etc take the definite article in prose and are inherently descriptive - eg theBattle of Waterloo is a battle that occurred near Waterloo. As a group, these are commonly capitalised but there are significant number of exceptions for specific battles, wars etc such as theSyrian civil war, whereSyrian civil war is not consistently capped in sources. There is no apparent substantive reason why these should be considered as a group as an exception from the general guidance, particularly when the lead paragraph at MILTERMS reinforces that the general guidance apples to MILTERMS.
Asserting thatusually creates a lesser standard than the general guidance is clearly contrary to the usual meaning and thespirit and intent, reading in the fuller context of MOS:CAPS as a whole and the more specific guidance at MILTERMS.Cinderella157 (talk)03:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many editors are of a view that any name having a specific referent is a proper name that must be capitalised. Those are the rules of the English language: "Names of people, places and organisations are called proper nouns. We spell proper nouns with a capital letter"[1]While a specific referent is a property of a proper name, it is not a defining property since specificity of referent is also conveyed by the definite article (the). "The" is not necessary to make something a "specific referent", we say "Berlin", not "The Berlin"; adding "the" is an exception that arose through use, e.g. "The Grand Canyon".TurboSuperA+(connect)09:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we do capitalise proper nouns. This is not disputed. However, because something is spelled with a capital letter, that does not make itipso facto a proper noun|name. English often capitalises descriptive names for emphasis, significance or as a term of art. If you read the Merriam-Webster definition or our articleproper noun you will see that proper nouns are also not descriptive. I was not saying that proper nounsmust take the definite article (the) to be specific (as you would indicate with the exampleBerlin). What I was saying is that the definite article confers specificity and therefore, specificity of referent is not a defining property of a proper noun. Consequently, names such asthe Cimean B|blocade orthe Syrian C|civil W|war are notipso facto proper nouns because they take the definite article in prose. Your examplethe Grand Canyon is considered a proper noun even though it might appear descriptive (the canyon which is grand), This is partly because it is common to capitalise descriptors such ascanyon, bay, sea etc (but not all descriptors) in geographical names. Secondly, we should not be confused by the etymology of the name where somebody saidthis looks grand, let's call it the Gand Canyon since they might just as easily called it something else likeKings Canyon. The ngram for Grand Canyonhere is pretty much always capped compared withSyrian civil warhere [contexturalised for prose]. However, because WP relies on usage in sources to determine capitalisation, we capitaliseAmerican Civil War because, even though it is not atrue proper noun, it is consistently capitalised in sources (seehere).
If we removeusually in the sentence at MILTERMS, it begs the question as to what is anaccepted name of wars etc, since clearly, not all wars, battles etc are proper nouns. They are descriptive in nature, they take the definite article in prose and not all are consistently capitalised in sources. For the rest of this, you can read my reply to Chicdat below.Cinderella157 (talk)11:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removeusually altogether – text was added without discussion by Dicklyon six years ago. I will copy my comment from a recent RM:The operative word here is "accepted" – thus, the event has an actual, accepted common name, not a descriptive name (e.g.American Civil War is accepted,War in Afghanistan is [descriptive]). This is putting into wordscommon sense, something that has never really existed at MOS:CAPS. Accepted = proper name. Proper names are capitalized. Please find any grammar or style guide that contradicts that.🐔ChicdatBawk to me!11:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your attempted to removeusually but were reverted by another with the edit summary:... if this text has been here for 6 years it has implicit consensus ... Consequently, your comment is not a surprise. Removingusually begs the question: what is anaccepted name - but you already answer this question:Accepted equals proper name [equals sign won't render here]. Therefore, we capitalise names of wars etc if they are proper names. WP (MOS:CAPS) treats those names which are consistently capitalised in sources as a proper name (per the lead).Accepted equals proper name represents thespirit and intent of the subject sentence. As you note, the names given to wars, battles, revolutions etc are not all proper names and the names of articles using these terms are not always correctly capitalised. Withoutusually, there is no conflict between the subject sentence and the lead paragraph of MILTERMS or the general advice in the lead. Ifusually is understood as synonymous withconsistently, there is no conflict either. Such an understanding is consistent with reading the definition ofusually on balance and the evidence of linguistic studies. Arguments thatusually creates a lower threshold for caps than the general advice is based on an aberrant meaning ofusually (by taking one part of the definition in isolation rather than on balance) such that the subject sentence would be inconsistent with the general advice. As you have identified,accepted equals proper name, and such an argument is contrary to thespirit of the subject sentence as you have identify it. I see that addingusually affirms the consistency with the general advice and believe this was the intent of adding it. PerhapsDicklyon can affirm this. With or withoutusually theintent of the subject sentence is to affirm the general guidance in the lead.Cinderella157 (talk)01:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Revert and remove "usually" per Chicdat, proper names are uppercased on Wikipedia. To lessen that obvious commonsense view, the word "usually" (which means 'most often') was added without discussion and has since been used to lowercase proper names. An easy fix to bring the guideline back the status of its original meaning. As for the meaning of the word "usually", the only objective term used in dictionary meanings is "most often", which asserts a majority, or the name most commonly used, and nothing more.Randy Kryn (talk)11:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Amending my statement, as people are actually saying "usually" doesn't mean what it means. Either "usually" is kept, which sets the standard of "most often" (i.e. either 50.1% or the name used more than any other) or the wording reverts to include all wars, battles, etc. "Usually" at least sets a bar for those who want to keep it, but it certainly doesn't mean "always" or "consistently", it means most often, and is maybe the best idea to use it for all title casings and not only MILTERMS.Randy Kryn (talk)12:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consistent – If the spirit and intent of the MILHIST part of the MOS is to have a lower threshold for determining what's a proper name, that's problematic. Nobody will disagree with statements like Hawkeye7's that "Proper nouns should be capitalised", but the MOS tells us how to decide what is a proper noun/name. Having an editor assert "proper name" when it's commonly found lowercase is sources (as we see commonly in MIL RM discussions) is not the right answer here.Reject the attempt to have a lower threshold of capitalization in this one topic area.Dicklyon (talk)23:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't attempt to change the English definition of "usually". It means "most often", and nothing less or more. So no, it is not another word for "consistent".Randy Kryn (talk)12:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consistent based on reading the relevant sections of both policies. Seems pretty straightforward: follow abundant reliable sources.
MOS:CAPS:"Wikipediarelies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia."
MOS:MILTERMS:"[W]herever a military term is an accepted proper name, asindicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized."
Consistent per above. There was never an agreement of intent to establish a lower threshold. That was a reinterpretation after the fact. And the word shouldn't be deleted, as the comments above show some desire for the absence of the word to be interpreted differently. — BarrelProof (talk)21:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Broken RfC, this RfC is about the word "usually", not about replacing it with another word. Replacing it for another word with a different meaning falls outside the scope of the RfC question. It's either remove it or keep it as is. Wikipedia should not be changing the meaning of a word which is defined as "most often", and "spirit and intent" language is strange wording with no basis in guidelines or policy. "Usually" means what sources say it means, "most often". Either keep it or remove it, but don't redefine it.Randy Kryn (talk)02:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's nobody who coulddefine English words once and for all, that's not how languages work. Words get their sense from their usage, and the usage can vary over time, region, and users. Dictionaries can help a lot, though of course they too will not always agree. I don't know from which dictionary you drew your "most often" description, butin Wiktionary I find the descriptions "Most of the time; less than always, but more than occasionally" and "Under normal conditions". But where in the "less than always, but more than occasionally" range do we want it to fall in this case? Or what are "normal conditions" and when do they no longer apply? Those are reasonable questions for an RfC to ask and as I understand this RfC, it's meant to do essentially just that – clarify the indented meaning of an inherently somewhat vague and ambiguous word for this specific case.Gawaon (talk)06:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bad RfC more or less per Randy Kryn. We have over the years developed an unfortunate habit of using words in ways that are different from and even contrary to their normal meaningthough this double usage of words as terms-of-art is by no means limited to us. I even bear some small share of blame for that. I suppose in many cases it isn't that bad because frequency of usage and context allows people to figure out the intended meanings without too much difficulty. However we really want to avoid future occurrences even if it leads to somewhat dry technical language being employed.Thus it is logical to propose a rewording for clarity, or to remove a word, or even to remove the whole paragraph. If the intent here is to say that this is not an exception or special case then it shouldn't be there at allit is rather backwards to list something in an exceptions area only to say it is not an exception, please don't write guidelines that way. But what we should not be doing is having RfCs to redefine one specific instance of a word's appearancewell unless you deliberately want to make projectspace even more confusing for new and casual editors.Assertions that we should draft imprecisely because semantic drift is inevitable are unconvincing and prove too much. If and when such shifts happen rewording can and will be done to maintain meaning, assuming practice doesn't shift, but we should strive to reduce ambiguity not create more of it.184.152.65.118 (talk)20:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consistent is the best available option, since it reduces the impact that an unnecessary specific rule is having on a useful general rule. Better options would be to rework MILTERMS more significantly, or make a small change like replacing "usually" with "consistently". I oppose removing "usually", and I see the unexplained clash between it and both the MILTERMS opener and CAPS more generally to be untenable.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)14:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no single universal rule for capitalizing "black" and "white" when relation to people, although this is more common in some American style guides. It can be nuanced, for example according to TheGuardian,Minna Salami, who is a Finnish Nigerian, dislikes capitalizing "black" when reference to people because she opposes the imposition of any single rule regarding how black people should define themselves. In South Africa, the term "colored" should not be capitalized, according to the South African Editorial Style Guide by the government in South Africa. (https://www.gcis.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/resourcecentre/guidelines/Editorial_Style_Guide.pdf). The Oxford dictionary stated that the capitalization of these terms are a stylistic choice, rather than a strict rule. The term "African American" should not be hyphenated.MarcoToa1 (talk)09:43, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalizing "white" is optional, since it hasn't developed a widespread, accepted cultural identity and community to the same extent. Some also capitalized "white" and "black" like theAPA style.MarcoToa1 (talk)09:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've used the sources frommxdwn.com, which is a relianle source. When I cite this source, I write it as "MXDWN" (all caps) in|website=, thinking it was aninitialism. However, I could not find any evidence that "MXDWN" is actually an initialism. On the contrary, the site itself uses the lowercase form "mxdwn" on itsAbout Us page. Should I therefore write it as "Mxdwn" instead?Camilasdandelions (talk!)23:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear to be a pronounceable word, so I think many people would treat it as an arbitrary string of letters and would thus capitalize it. Searching for it on Wikipedia shows a highly varied mixture of MXDWN, Mxdwn and mxdwn, sometimes followed by ".com" and sometimes not. — BarrelProof (talk)18:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. That is not how the US Department of Defense handles it. You will note that on .mil websites typicallysoldier,airman, etc. are also capitalized. Wikipedia's guidance for the capitalization of job titles which are not referring to a specific person is to use lower case. In the same way a university might capitalizeprofessor or a company might capitalizecustomer. They are capitalizing for importance. This has been discussed many times and we have continued to refer to amarine in lower case. I look at the usage; if I would substitutesoldier formarine, it would be lower case, but if I would substituteArmy forMarine, it would be upper case. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 03:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite… those articles consistently capitalize “Marine Corps” as an entity (just as we would capitalize “Army” or “Navy”)… they don’t capitalize the use of “marine” as a job title.Blueboar (talk)12:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What articles are you reading? "Puller is the most decorated Marine in American history." "He [Burnes] was serving in Tientsin, China, on June 20, 1900, and along with three other Marines crossed a river in a small boat under heavy enemy fire ..." "Brannum met fellow Marine Bob Keeshan" (Mr. Green Jeans AND Captain Kangaroo!) "He [Buckley] was one of three Marines ..." "This action [by Bruce] saved the lives of three other Marines."Clarityfiend (talk)23:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Be that is it may, if some articles don't adhere to the MOS, it only shows that they don't adhere to the consensus documented in the MOS, not that there's consensusagainst the MOS. The proper course of action is to fix the articles to bring them in agreement with the established consensus.Gawaon (talk)08:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both Wikipedia's manual of style and theChicago Manual of Style (used for many academic purposes) set "marine" in lowercase. —Eyer (he/him)If youreply, add{{reply to|Eyer}} to your message.00:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Long story short. Nobody outside the DOD cares about how they do things. We treat marine just like any other word in the English language. If you find usages of Marine, please let us know so that we can fix them. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions)12:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merriam-Webster is arguably the standard of dictionaries of American English. In Merriam-Webster, “marine” is listed as a common noun (uncapitalized). —Eyer (he/him)If youreply, add{{reply to|Eyer}} to your message.00:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
