Wikipedia talk:MOSCAPS

Capitalization discussions ongoing (keep at top of talk page)

Add new items at top of list; move to Concluded when decided, and summarize the conclusion. Comment at them if interested. Please keep this section at the top of the page.

Capitalization "black", "white" and "colo[u]red"

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 The Guardian, 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)

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 the APA style. MarcoToa1 (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It's best to ask the writer or author's preference about the capitalization. MarcoToa1 (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

You can compare:

Black people, black people, White people, white people, Coloured people, coloured people

in Ngram and must be case sensitive. MarcoToa1 (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

You can also compare other style guides. MarcoToa1 (talk) 09:50, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It should be "compare with". MarcoToa1 (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

This is covered in MOS:RACECAPS. Gawaon (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. MarcoToa1 (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

There has been a discussion at Talk:Reverse racism discussing this with more examples of style guides listed. The Associated Press capitalizes black but not white, whereas the Chicago Manual of Style capitalizes both. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, and both these styles are allowed by MOS:RACECAPS. Personally I capitalize "Black", but not "white", unless local consensus requires something else. Gawaon (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I think we should capitalize both or capitalize neither. Otherwise it does not seem logically consistent. White supremacy is a cultural concept just as much if not more than the cultural concept of Black Americans. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The idea is that Black people in America are a specific, "tangible" group (like Native Americans). Of course there are plenty of black people across the globe who are not part of this circumscribed group. There are also questions like, if you are a 21st-century African immigrant to the US, are you now part of this group without actually sharing its history? Do you "graduate" from being black to being Black? Can you decide? Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is discussed in the AP style guide stories, but I do not find it logical. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

To speak to your example, Barack Obama is Black. Asian Indians who have darker skin than he does are called brown, and Chinese people who have lighter skin than French people are not called white. This suggests the adjectives are proper adjectives which should be capitalized. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

United States Marine

It currently says "John Doe is a Marine" is incorrect. That's not how I see it or how United States Marine Corps handles it. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

You are correct. That is not how the US Department of Defense handles it. You will note that on .mil websites typically soldier, 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 capitalize professor or a company might capitalize customer. They are capitalizing for importance. This has been discussed many times and we have continued to refer to a marine in lower case. I look at the usage; if I would substitute soldier for marine, it would be lower case, but if I would substitute Army for Marine, it would be upper case. SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

"Soldier", "professor" and "customer" are generic terms, while "Marine" is a member of a particular unit. The Department of Defense (p. 8) specifies that it should be capitalized, as do the Washington Post, Time magazine, the New York Times (now), the Marine Corps University Press house style guide (p. 7), etc. etc. (This applies only to US Marines; foreign marines are not capitalized.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Nope. Let's not treat people differently based on which country they're from. That would be an NPOV violation. Gawaon (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

It is not an NPOV violation, any more than "humor" vs "humour" is. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, this is pretty standard in Marine articles: [random sample of articles] Chesty Puller, James Burnes (Medal of Honor), Hugh Brannum, Howard Major Buckley, Daniel D. Bruce, etc., so this is flying in the face of a strong consensus. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 consensus against 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)

Both Wikipedia's manual of style and the Chicago Manual of Style (used for many academic purposes) set "marine" in lowercase. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 00:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

@SchreiberBike, Gawaon, and Blueboar: Let's attack this from another perspective. American articles use American spelling. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Capitalization is not a change in spelling. “m” and “M” are the same letter of the alphabet. Blueboar (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Who said anything about a "change"? Capitalization is how American English handles it. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

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 you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 00:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Capitalized "Church" in Scientology articles

In the Scientology article an editor has recently edited it so that the "the Church" is sometimes used as an abbreviated form for the Church of Scientology. The editor also added a note justifying this on the grounds that this is an abbreviated name that it uses. (A similar argument is also often made to justify "the Church" instead of "the church" in Catholic Church-related articles.) There are two MOS questions here: 1. Is this capitalization unjustified according to the principles of MOS:INSTITUTION? or 2. Is the capitalization justified (according to the same section) on the grounds of it being a consistently capitalized shortened name of a specific institution? Your thoughts please. Thanks, Afterwriting (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I think such capitalization is useful and widely used in both cases. It's helpful as shortened form of the full name, and avoids any risk of confusion with "the church" as a reference to some previously mentioned building. MOS:INSTITUTION would presumably argue for lowercase, however. Gawaon (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

In any case, a note on this seems overkill. Decide to a form and stick to it; there's no need to apologize or explain. Gawaon (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Unjustified capitalization. No reason this should be an exception to MOS:INSTITUTION. As far as I know, Scientology does not have buildings that it calls churches, so there's no possibility of confusion with a particular building in this context. Deor (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I'll edit it accordingly asap. Afterwriting (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

MOS:MOVEMENT clarification

I propose the following change to the first sentence of MOS:MOVEMENT:

This would clarify that our approach to "movements" (doctrines, ideologies, philosophies, etc. …) is essentially the same as it is to other topics. A strong reading of the current wording could suggest that we only capitalize "movements" like Calvinism, where the name derives from the proper name John Calvin, but do not capitalize New Age movement, Never Trump movement ("Never" also capitalized in running text), Arts and Crafts movement, MeToo movement, New Culture Movement, Indian Home Rule movement, Irish Home Rule movement, New Citizens' Movement, etc. regardless of usage in reliable sources. I believe this strong reading is incorrect. It would be at odds with actual practice and with our standards in every other subject area. It is also somewhat contradictory to the later guidance which tells us to follow usage in sources to determine when to capitalize words like draconian and platonic. I view this as a simple clarification rather than a change to the guidance, but this came up recently at Talk:Ham and Eggs movement#Requested move 9 April 2026 so I am raising this here rather than boldly changing the wording. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support always capitalizing proper names. Not sure why anyone would object to this, it seems like a mere oversight in the guidance. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Question: What does "or derives one" mean? Can you explain and give an example? Gawaon (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  Oops, that should be derives from one. I have corrected it. Calvinism is derived from the proper name Calvin. In the example given in the MOS, the decision to capitalize republican would depend on whether the usage refers to republicanism or a specific Republican Party. I'm not sure where the derives from language originally came from. I'm not married to it. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support with different wording for guideline: unless the name is a proper name, or derives from one. The remainder of your proposed addition is unnecessary because CAPS defines proper noun as a word that is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of reliable secondary sources. Wallnot (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  I've corrected my proposal to derives from one. I prefer to maintain the rest of the proposal, though I acknowledge it is redundant. We repeat usually capitalized and consistently capitalized in multiple subsections of MOSCAPS. Since editors often reference subject-specific usage guidance in content and article title determinations, some repetition is helpful. I called out independent here since a lot of writing on "movements" comes from adherents or proponents and other sources that may be prone to over-capitalization. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  Independent is not a term of art used elsewhere in the guideline so I oppose its inclusion here. The addition should refer to reliable secondary sources, which would not include primary sources written by adherents or opponents. Wallnot (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  Huh?! "Independent" appears multiple times in this guideline. Its first appearance is in the lead (emphasis included in the original):

  Wikipedia relies 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.

  At MOS:CAPSACRS:

  for any given example, use the spelling found in the majority of reliable, independent sources

  At MOS:PERSONAL:

  As proper nouns, these names are almost always first-letter capitalized. An exception is made when the lowercase variant has received regular and established use in reliable independent sources.

  At MOS:SPORTCAPS:

  Specific competition titles and events (or series thereof) are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in independent sources

  The explanatory note [j] within MOS:SPORTCAPS/GAMECAPS references and directly quotes consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources from the lead section of the guideline.

  At MOS:TMCAPS:

  For trademarks that are given in mixed or non-capitalization by their owners (such as adidas), follow the formatting and capitalization used by independent reliable sources.

  This term of art is also used throughout Wikipedi's policies and guidelines about reliable sources.—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  Side note: We are inconsistent with our use of commas—independent, reliable vs. independent reliable. Both seem defensible to me but someone may want to take a look at that and make sure we're following our own MOS:COMMA guidance here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I support the edit as amended. Wallnot (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support per Myceteae and Wh1pla5h99. Make a lot of sense with the explanations given. Deviating from what reliable independent sources do would indeed seem rather odd. Gawaon (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Would ask for an exception for 'Civil Rights Movement'. The page used to be named '1954-1968 Civil Rights Movement', uppercased. Then, in a Requested move, it was lumped-together with other pages labeled 'civil rights movement' with dated years, although I'm not even sure if those other events were called civil rights movements or if that was just a made up name for a group of Wikipedia articles. But the 1954-1968 Civil Rights Movement, although 'civil rights movement' is not uppercased in the n-grams, is a proper name because the chain of related events can be shown to be organized, connected, strategized, and run by the same individuals (Dr. King, James Bevel, etc.). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  No need for an exception if its lowercase in RS. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  All guidelines call for commonsense exceptions. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  I mean that preserving lowercase there would not be an exception as the proposal is to add and is usually capitalized in reliable independent sources; we generally let RS determine what is and isn't a proper name. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  Exceptions to the guidelines means just that, there are occasional exceptions to the stated rules and regs. The structure of the Civil Rights Movement earns the proper name although sources don't differentiate. In any case, just pointing out that what may be discussed and the importance of exceptions in guideline language, not to decide specific future RMs.Randy Kryn (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  I actually think if RS lowercase "the civil rights movement" it is because it has become so ubiquitous as to not require a name; everyone knows which of the many civil rights movements is being referenced. So it isn't generally treated as a proper name even though it could be (and at times is). Like calling WW2 "the war". Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  The way the MOS differentiates between proper nouns and common nouns is by looking to the usage of reliable secondary sources. If civil rights movement is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of such sources, it should be capitalized on Wikipedia; otherwise the MOS calls for it to be LC. Your explanation of why an exception is justified here is essentially an attack on the guideline itself, which does not look to semantics to mark a distinction, just to the sources.

  I deleted my earlier comment because upon checking a couple RS I saw CRM used in LC. My recollection was that it was generally uppercase. I have no real interest in digging into the most common usage but an exception to the guideline for CRM specifically is completely inappropriate. Wallnot (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  The MOS should not make a special exception for the Civil Rights Movement. Case-by-case determinations should be made via RM. The MOS only highlights systematic exceptions, to highlight application of particular considerations. So unless there is consensus to move the page back to Civil Rights Movement and consensus that the decision reflects a set of principles that apply to similar cases, it doesn't make sense for the MOS to address this specific case. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  proper name because the chain of related events can be shown to be organized, connected, strategized, and run by the same individuals is not the way that Wikipedia nor scholars of language determine what is a isn't a proper name Katzrockso (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and made the change. This seems uncontroversial. I think the prior wording was simply incomplete, especially when read in isolation, and was never intended to apply a different standard to "movements". —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Black/white

As a 2020 discussion concluded "Consensus against changing MOSCAPS to capitalize "Black" when used as a racial or ethnic descriptor". I am therefore requesting for the line "mixed use (Black, but white) is also acceptable if editors at a particular article find it appropriate" at MOS:RACECAPS be removed. ~2026-27503-96 (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Also where has it been determined that "mixed use is acceptable"? Can anyone link such a discussion? ~2026-27503-96 (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@Wallnot: ~2026-27503-96 (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

As the inline note makes clear, local usage was the status quo before the linked discussion failed to reach a consensus, so it is the status quo now, and in any event has been in the MOS for 6 years, so if you want to remove the language you’ll need to gain consensus instead of asking others to look for support for settled language in a 6 year old discussion. Wallnot (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

The linked discussion reached a clear consensus: "Consensus against changing MOSCAPS to capitalize "Black" when used as a racial or ethnic descriptor"

It does not get clearer than that ~2026-27503-96 (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

On the contrary, the closure statement is not very clear, but my understanding is that while there was consensus against requiring "Black" (and possibly also "White") to be capitalized everywhere, there was no consensus to forbid it. Indeed the proposal didn't even include an alternative suggestion to never capitalize "black" (or "white"), hence no possible consensus for this could have emerged. The question of whether it's okay to capitalize "Black" and "white" differently was also not asked (and accordingly not answered). Gawaon (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

So why are we saying "mixed use is acceptable" when this has never been discussed and is blatantly against MOS:CONSISTENT? ~2026-27503-96 (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

It has been discussed. I remember having participated in such discussions (this is another one), even though its origin is much older. Apparently there has never been a consensus against it, which is why it stays. Also, consistently using "Black" but "white" in an article is indeed consistent. Gawaon (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

It's consistently inconsistent, along with being racist. If you have participated in such discussions (which is surprising considering you have only been registered here since 2023) you should probably have no problem providing a link to it. ~2026-27503-96 (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Go read WP:ONUS, WP:AGF and maybe WP:COOL before continuing to reply here. If you want a rule against mixed capitalization or against capitalizing black at all, you'll need to be the one to establish consensus for that rule change. It's not our job to dig up evidence of consensus when the MOS has had this language for six years. Wallnot (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

It was added last July https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters&diff=prev&oldid=1299365122 ~2026-27503-96 (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I've read Onus, it says "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content." That means you are supposed to find consensus for its inclusion ~2026-27503-96 (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

ONUS is being misapplied here. We do have the concept of “Silent consensus”. The fact that some bit of specific wording in a page has remained stable for 6 years shows that it enjoys at least some level of consensus - especially true in a heavily watched and edited page like this. Granted, silent consensus is the weakest form of consensus… but it is consensus.

Now, consensus can always change, and you are welcome to explain why you think it either has changed (or should change). But to argue that there has never been a consensus on this language is not realistic. Blueboar (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

If there is a silent consensus on a point, then the ONUS is on the editors seeking a change to establish consensus for that change—that was the point of my reference to ONUS. To the IP editor’s point above that the language was added 6 months ago, they are right that it was added to the body of RACECAPS then, but the note regarding the 2020 RfC has acknowledged that mixed use is permissible for far longer (as far as I can tell, since the RfC). Wallnot (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Not quite … WP:ONUS is focused on “inclusion” (and by extension, “exclusion”) - not “change”. It says that the onus to gain consensus is on those who want to include - it does not mention those who want to change (at all).

My point about silent consensus is this - when there is a silent consensus, the onus to gain consensus has been achieved. It is no longer an issue.

Now, this does not mean that text with a silent consensus can not be changed (it can). It simply means that WP:ONUS has previously been complied with and is no longer the right policy shortcut to point to when arguing about future potential changes. Blueboar (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the part of the text that was added last year. It seems like the idea of mixing the styles does not enjoy a consensus, and there's nothing in the attached RFCs to support the idea that the community endorses this. In general articles are supposed to be consistent, and a discussion last year also does not seem to have consensus to add the line in question. If editors want to establish a line saying that mixed is acceptable, then they need to gain consensus for that per WP:ONUS.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

As I explained above… not “Per ONUS”… that said: I think that Amauri raises some valid points, and so we DO need to discuss further - and either confirm the silent consensus more explicitly or establish a new consensus overturning it. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

My own opinion on the capitalization is: Don’t care which terms are capitalized (or not)… as long as individual articles are internally consistent. Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Well yes, that would be a sensible position, but the point of contention seems to be on mixing different terms within articles, e.g. Black, white, white, Black. It seems like that question was not particularly addressed at all in the 2020 RFC, so declaring a consensus or lack of consensus is missing the point. And when it was raised last year, there was no consensus then - several editors expressed the view that there should be consistency. Absent such a consensus, the line saying mixed usage is allowed shouldn't have been added. I don't see it as a silent consensus when someone has asked the question, there was no agreement on it, but it was added anyway. WP:ONUS should apply here, as the line in question is contested and the default is for it not to be included. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Finally someone gets it. @Gawaon: regarding "racist" in your edit summary, I totally agree, thats the whole point. capitalizing one while not doing it for the other is exactly that ~2026-27503-96 (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

One editor complaining about language without making a substantive critique of that language (all the IP comments are just arguments that there isn’t a consensus, not arguments against the language per se) does not a controversy make. Think that was premature; someone trying to delete six year old language needs to gain consensus to do so. Wallnot (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

That is not how WP:ONUS works. Those seeking to include the language need to to gain the consensus, and there is no evidence that anyone ever did, six-years-old or otherwise.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

What about EDITCON? Challenging a six-year-old addition by retroactively invoking ONUS seems very doubtful. Clearly the edit had found sufficient consensus to stay for so young, which should suffice. Gawaon (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

whats with the six years constantly. it was added in july 2025 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters&diff=prev&oldid=1299365122 ~2026-27503-96 (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. It was added to the body text in July but language allowing for mixed use has been in the note for far longer. Wallnot (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

My understanding about the edits last year (the phrase added to the main text) is that they simply made more visible what the explanatory note h has been saying for years: "with no consensus to implement a rule ... against mixed use where editors at a particular article believe it's appropriate." So the possibility of such "mixed use" remains whether or not the main text explicitly says so. But what's the benefit of forcing editors to read through complicated notes to find this out when we could instead say so clearly? Gawaon (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Remember that there are TWO ways to achieve consensus: 1) via discussion (RFCs, discussions on talk pages or at noticeboards), and 2) via editing (where someone makes a bold edit, others tweak it… until it gains a stable state).

This seems to be a case of the latter. Even if we want to say that this was boldly added new last July… and not just a tweet to pre-existing guidance… it had a brief period of tweaking and then gained a stable state. Enough time has passed for us to say it gained silent consensus.

So, please stop arguing that this never had consensus. It did.

The question we should be asking is whether it STILL has consensus? Or - Has consensus changed? Blueboar (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

but when you allow mixed use, then that means that not only "Black"/"white" is allowed, but also "White"/"black", which Im sure people will have problems with ~2026-27503-96 (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok… I think THAT is a valid point. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean that. The 2020 discussion (to which the "six years" refer) linked to a number of style guides that recommend always capitalizing "Black", without necessarily recommending the same for "white". While the proposal to do the same in Wikipedia failed to reach consensus, these style guides are still around, and some others may since have taken the same stance. The mixed usage, with never became policy, but was also never ruled out (in my understanding) thus refers to this "Black/white" combination recommended by some style guides. That's the precedent some people prefer to follow, and our guidelines allow this. However, I strongly suppose that no serious style guide recommends the combination "black/White", hence there is no precedent that would allow us to use such an odd combination. Gawaon (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, the opening post in the 2020 discussion linked to style guides. These were then rejected almost unanimously ~2026-27503-96 (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference between publications with style guides that say to capitalize Black but not White and WP: those publications have no policy of NPOV. Those style guides are not aiming at a principle of neutrality, nor are they claiming to. Agree or disagree with the practice, but there is no question it is inherently non-neutral. I will also note that this is almost exclusively an American thing, and it isn't universal in America; but in the UK black and white are both usually always in lowercase and in SA I think they're usually capped (along with Coloured). I think the MOS guidance should be all "color"/"race" terms get capped or all get uncapped, because anything else fails neutrality. ~2026-34838-40 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

NPOV means representing all significant, well-sourced views "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias". It doesn't mean treating everyone the same, and it doesn't prevent us from making our own styling decisions. Gawaon (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The Bahamas (again)

As they are back into news, the question about capitalization of "The" is back also. Modern Bahamian official usage tend to be clearly in favor of always capitalize it, also in compounds. Sometimes it slips still, and it goes as lowercase "the", but looks like the more modern the source is, the more prominent the word processing powers are, and it more and more rare. On the other hand, The Constitution of The Commonwealth of The Bahamas, rather important source I think, is incoherent on this case. Site of The Government of The Bahamas provide its text with a rather scary disclaimer: "The Constitution contained on this site is an unofficial reproduction of the laws prepared for personal non-commercial distribution and use only. The site disclaimer applies to this document as well.". Indeed, the Constitution itself there start with the title of "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE BAHAMAS". Some other sites contain less suspicious variants, but, as I understand, they are not official ones. In any case, various versions tends to agree on its further text, I think example of the CHAPTER I would suffice:

"CHAPTER I

THE CONSTITUTION

1. The Commonwealth of the Bahamas shall be a sovereign democratic State.

2. This Constitution is the supreme law of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas and, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, if any other law is inconsistent with this Constitution, this Constitution, shall prevail and the other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void."

Further in text there capitalized "The"s definitely prevail; but lowercase ones are still aplenty. Nevertheless, in modern documents capitalized ones are ubiquitous. On the other hand, currently in Wikipedia lower cases are more common, except titles.

Could it be that somebody ever stumbled upon some official statement of their Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the matter? (I hoped to find one, but utterly failed.)

Should the clear preference of capitalized "The" in Bahamian modern usage assume the same rule in Wikipedia, or it should be grandfathered as being ambiguous according to their constitution (its not that some editor know it better than the Part 1 of the Chapter I of the Constitution)? Ideally it should be some site-wide rule, enforced by a script notification at submitting, or plainly reverting to a correct letter case.

Even if it could be seen as "both ways are correct", unification either way is preferable, as otherwise it would be the same editing conflicts again and again over the nothing.

^ Moved it to the more appropriate place per @Left guide proposal ("... this meta-issue about style in article text is probably more appropriate for WT:MOSCAPS or similar").

Correct: weather in the Bahamas

Incorrect: weather in The Bahamas

Correct (exception): languages of The Gambia

Correct: languages of the Gambia

As far I understand, those two cases at least should work the same way (one of the 3 possible). ~2026-28969-81 (talk) 06:18, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The most recent discussion of this that I'm aware of can be found at Talk:University of the Bahamas/Archives/2026#Requested move 24 April 2026. I don't think the Constitution of the place matters much one way or the other. I don't fully understand some of the above remarks. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

This is a precisely a narrow case related to a more general problem.

> There is always a discussion on this topic. The situation is that the country's official name is "The Bahamas" with the "The" and the "The" is officially capitalized. The official name of this university is also with Capitalized "The".

> Per MOS:THECAPS we do not capitalize the Bahamas in non-proper nouns (example given: weather in the Bahamas), so I would oppose a change like Culture of The Bahamas. However, this is a different scenerio since its official name is University of The Bahamas. Organizations, including the Government of The Bahamas generally seem to use the capitalized article.

> Well, silly me. I didn't realize we hadn't accepted The Bahamas as correct. Regardless, the name of the institution is properly University of The Bahamas.

My question is why exactly it is treated at least differently from The Gambia, and against Bahamian own usage? A least Bahamian government offices see that "The" should be capitalized. It is in conflict with some newspapers manual of style, or what is exactly the problem is about in this case?

The Constitution of the place, I think, should be a valid (not the only valid) source of official way the country name is written (but its not really work here, because it's incoherent there). If you think it would be of use, I'll try to rephrase and clarify unclear wording above. ~2026-29466-95 (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Are "some groups of organisms" still "in the process of converting to sentence case"?

MOS:COMMONNAMES currently says:

As of 2017, WikiProjects for some groups of organisms are in the process of converting to sentence case where title case was previously used. Some articles may not have been changed yet (this may still be true of some insect articles and some plant ones, as well as a few on amphibians and reptiles).

It's been some time since I encountered a page where the common species title was still capitalized. Any objections to removing this nearly-decade-old note? pburka (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I and others worked on that for a while. I think it is done. I say "Rip it out." SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:15, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done. pburka (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Capitalization of naval ship categories

I've noticed some consistent inconsistency in the capitalization of certain generic categories of naval vessels, mostly landing craft. These are usually designated with abbreviations derived from phrases with nonstandard word order: Landing Ship, Heavy (LCH); Landing Craft, Support (LCS); Landing Ship Medium (LSM); landing ship, infantry; etc. As you can see, the capitalization is all over the place: sometimes, the page name is in sentence case, but it's capitalized in the lead; sometimes, both the lead and page name are in title case; sometimes, the first use is uppercase, but subsequent uses are lowercase, etc.

It's unclear whether any of these should be treated as proper nouns, since they refer to categories of ship. My working assumption is that the operative rule should be MOS:EXPABBR--that is, don't capitalize the expanded form just because it's associated with an all-caps abbreviation. That's how caps are handled with motor gunboats (MGB), littoral combat ships (LCS), and ship classes (e.g. Nimitz-class aircraft carriers).

The only distinction seems to be that the abbreviation doesn't match the normal word order, so caps are used to distinguish. Consistently capitalizing something like "Landing Ship, Tank" feels wrong, but reading something like "the landing ship, tank was developed..." is also confusing. Changing the word order, as is done here, also doesn't feel quite right, since it tends to genericize specific warship types in a confusing way.

Obviously, this is a terribly charming outcome of the absurd proliferation of initialisms in Anglo-American military culture, but surely there's some consistent rule we can apply, right? ... right? Walker Elliott (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgeable in this area, and don't edit these articles, but I would think that MOS:EXPABBR covers this as well also our general approach to to capitalize only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources. It may be that names like Landing Ship, Tank more often take on proper names because, well, this does does not follow standard word order and so is in fact a proper name and not a simple noun phrase. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

My understanding is that (a) the normal MOS rules should apply unless the capitalization is not just "a substantial majority," but that there's a pressing reason to break normal protocol, and the sources are near-ubiquitous. There seem to be a lot of instances where Wikipedia capitalizes things in ways that don't align with the majority of sources. Based on my (admittedly fairly cursory) review, that's not the case here--plenty of reliable sources (primary and secondary, and across a long period of time) use lowercase.

As I argued on Talk:Landing Ship, Tank, I really don't think we can classify these as proper nouns just because of the weird word order. This is a class or category of vessel, and that's always a common noun category in English. Also, near-identical categories are treated and capitalized as common nouns--cf "motor gunboat" and "littoral combat ship". Walker Elliott (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Gawaon (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The normal MOS rules should apply. I did not mean to suggest otherwise nor that that I think these are proper names or should be capitalized, but I can see that I did not make that very clear. Not having investigated the usage myself and not being familiar with this topic area, I was merely musing that odd terms like this may actually be proper names. It was an evidence-free and unhelpful thought to share. I agree with your interpretation of EXPABBR and would apply the normal MOSCAPS guidance to this topic area. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Just a note: You say that "the landing ship, tank was developed..." is confusing, but when properly punctuated to set off the parenthetical tank—"the landing ship, tank, was developed..."—it's somewhat less so. And if the consensus at Talk:Landing Ship, Tank is to drop the comma, "the landing ship tank was developed..." wouldn't be confusing, I think. Deor (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Chaparita ASARI

Should Chaparita ASARI be moved (and referred to) with normal capitalization, or with the stylization intact? As far as I can tell from the article, her last (stage) name doesn't seem to be an acronym. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Normal capitalization. A quick Google search shows both forms are used, so there's no good reason to prefer the stylized all-caps version. pburka (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

This should really be discussed on the article's talk page. I've left a notice there. I will also remind everyone that article titles and capitalization is an ArbCom-designated contentious topic. Any appearance of avoiding the article talk page and coming to MOSCAPS instead to get a particular answer may be viewed as improper. This is not an accusation, just a heads up and gentle reminder. As for the substantive question, looks like normal capitalization is called for per the MOS and my very quick scan of Google and Google news results, which match pburka's findings. I would probably do a more thorough assessment if these were RM. MOS:ROMANCAPS also support this. ROMANCAPS doesn't address personal or stage names but the guidance can reasonably be extended to this situation and is consistent with MOSCAPS and our general approach elsewhere. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)