Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization.In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence. [a] 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.
An indefinite or definite article is capitalized only when at the start of a title, subtitle, or embedded title or subtitle. For example, a book chapter titled "An Examination of The Americans: The Anachronisms in FX's Period Spy Drama" contains three capitalized leading articles (main title "An", embedded title "The", and subtitle "The").
The stated (and rather common sense) purpose of our capitalization guidelines as laid out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) is that "because credibility is a primary objective in the creation of any reference work, and because Wikipedia strives to become a leading (if not the leading) reference work in its genre, formality and an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre ...
The question comes down bluntly to whether MOS (which is Tony1's argument) says proper names in the title cannot be capitalized, or if RS, which capitalized things, is more important for the capitalization in a title.
For correctness, the convention should specify that ‘to’ when used as part of an infinitive should not be capitalized (unless it begins the title). Otherwise the examples “To Be or Not to Be” and “Failure to Launch” are inconsistent with the rule as stated. --Mathew5000 21:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name. For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized , even mid-sentence.
Prose should still be succinct, but the significance of the image should be fully explained. Any elements not included in a legend or clearly labelled should be defined in the caption. A substantial, full discussion of a technical image may be confined to the caption if it improves the structure of the prose in the main article.
Proper names should be capitalized and this should be included in the Manual of Style. I have to add that I'm sad that it has to be included -- in my native language's Wikipedia it doesn't have to be included in the MoS, as it had already been included in grammar books for seven-year-olds, but judging from the edit wars in some articles ...