Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Capitalization Guideline

I feel that this policyguideline being accepted as standard now before it becomes a problem needing discussion would be more beneficial to the wiki in the long run. This policyguideline is slightly different than current GWW policyguideline (as I understand it), and is done more in line to follow proper English standards. This policyguideline also allows for the same potential issue as GWW, to recreate the game information accurately, even to the extent of the game having misspellings and similar items. 42 - talk 05:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Why can't this just be a guideline?

Shouldn't this be a guideline instead of a policy? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have moved this page to the guidelines page for discussion there as a guideline, which it was intended to be (but misnamed) from the beginning. 42 - talk 18:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW Gordon, I agree with many of your points on the policy discussion page. 42 - talk 19:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've replaced the proposed policy tag with the proposed guideline tag. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gordon. 42 - talk 05:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I "ported" the Policy header tag, and reworked it to say Guideline where appropriate, and replaced your guideline tag. I thought it gave more functionality, until we can get one that looks better, or are willing to work with it. 42 - talk 07:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Title case

Due to the way that MediWiki software handles wikilinks and page names, using title case would make article links awkward. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This manner/method of capitalization is more accurate to how things are done almost everywhere else in the world (namely books and magazines), and as this can be considered a HUGE version of a book about GW2, I felt it was more proper to format it the same way. This also follows proper English standards closer and I feel that is another point for using this format, instead of the one currently in use on GWW.

I feel that too many people have gotten used to doing things the wrong way (against proper English standard), and it appears that just because that is how they do it, then anyone else who does it different is doing it "wrong". I am just trying to get this wiki started off on the right (correct) foot, before bad habits get carried over from GWW to here. 42 - talk 18:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As I have said on the GW2W policy discussion page, this wiki is not GWW, but a separate entity, and it should not just be assumed that everything that is currently done on GWW is necessarily correct. 42 - talk 18:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The technical limitations of the search engine is a big, big hurdle. If someone wanted to search for "List of Monk Skills" and typed in "list of monk skills" they wouldn't get pointed right to that page without a redirect. Now, imagine how many pages that would be. A lot. So, use lower case is superior in this case. --JonTheMon 06:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The trend of using sentence case in article titles isn't limited to Wikipedia and other wikis that copy Wikipedia. I checked the websites of the major news magazines listed in Wikipedia's newsmagazine article. The Economist, Maclean's, New Stateman, The Spectator, The Week, use sentence case for article titles on their websites, while BusinessWeek, The Nation, National Review, The New Republic, Newsweek, Queue Magazine, Time, U.S. News & World Report and The Weekly Standard use title case. Overall, it seems pretty rare in American print media, but common in the UK. I also checked the websites of the three major American 24 hour television news networks, CNN and MSNBC use sentence case for the headlines on their websites, while Fox News uses title case. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

To add my opinion on this: I really prefer sentence case in wiki titles. Not only because it is technically preferred by the software (for multiple reasons) but also because it just looks better and fits better into text when creating links within pages.

Also RE to your comment on my talk page: "It being spelled with lower case is not proper English standard, being that it is a title." - you are basically saying that wikipedia for example is not using proper english.. poke | talk 01:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, unlike many other major European languages, the English language doesn't have any centralized language regulator to define "proper English". -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with poke, the use of Title case is in no way a standard in anything other than book publishing. The wiki is not a book, and the software deals better with sentence case. -- Wyn talk 07:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

In regards to my understanding of the whole reason of calling it Title case, this is based on my personal experience, and how it was taught to me as being proper English when I went to school. In response to your comment about the wiki, in proper use of Title case, based on my understanding of it, yes, the wiki does not follow proper English in this. Other "proof" of using sentence case in titles, I don't think, proves proper use as much as it shows a laziness and falling away from the proper standard.

Using the technical reasons the wiki deals with text doesn't make it now somehow follow proper English. All that does is give a technical reason why it doesn't. Using the technical capabilities and limits of the wiki to justify using sentence case in titles "on the wiki" is a valid argument. Claiming that it is proper English because of that, no.

Despite what you seem to think Wyn, a wiki (this one AND GWW) in function and intent is a book. It is just an electronic one. Otherwise, why would you have to "read" the information in it? It is kind of surprising that it is so hard for you to see the parallels. It is true, the strict operation of an actual book is different, but this is an electronic book. If you ask the community of all of the wikis, I am sure that the greater majority of them would agree with me on this. The game manuals that come with the software is a book, right? You look up information (with words and pictures, etc.) in a game manual. This is just an electronic (and much larger) version of that.

The thing about the English language is that there are so many different viewpoints of what is proper and what isn't. Most of them use laziness to explain it away. 42 - talk 05:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you are basing "proper english" only on what you have learned in school, then please do not use it as an argument. Teachers tell you a lot shit, because they are always basing their education on what they think or believe what is right. And if you base your definition of a "book" on the fact, that you read in it, then your definition is quite flawed. A wiki is not a (electronic) book; alone the fact that you can't skim through it and the whole idea of cross linking makes it a lot different. If anything, a wiki is a collection of cross linking articles, although that quite misses the actual benefits from the software in its description.

Unless you get other and better arguments and convince someone else to agree with you, I would say you are quite alone with your capitalization idea, both here and on GWW. And as such I would like you to follow the current practice and name your pages appropriately (targeting your move topic below). poke | talk 08:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Unlike your arguments, I do not base my arguments on only one point. I also showed precedent beyond "just my education." Your refusal to accept proof because it doesn't fit your view doesn't mean it isn't proof. I have given accurate, repeatable, documentation (oh wow, a "book" related word), on Title case, and on the wiki being a version of an electronic book. I never said it was exactly the same as a actual made-of-paper book.

I have presented better arguments (with supporting documentation, oh wow, there's that "book" word) time and time again. The response, sorry, the excuse, given is "this is how it is done," with nothing else to back it. The technical capability of the wiki is a "valid" point for not using proper Title case in here. "I prefer sentence case" isn't. Since there are no specific guidelines yet, try sticking to legitimate valid points.

In regards to my proposed move, that actually is named appropriately, and accurately. Since so many people (you apparently being one of them) want to pick out one little section of a guideline (on another wiki) that is supposedly being violated to justify their point being made on this one, allow me to do the same. Will you look at this? It follows the guideline in use on GWW. Which, according to you, is "how things are done here."

General formatting guideline in use on GWW (which is an accepted guideline there) "Normal English capitalization is preferred. ... As a general rule capitalize only proper nouns ..." And from repeated posts I have made on this topic (from the Wiki page on capitalization) ""Common nouns may be capitalized when used as names for the entire class of such things, e.g. what a piece of work is Man."" Your refusal, sorry, repeated refusal to see valid points do not make those points invalid.

It brings up my point, again, where someone thinks the way they do something is the only way it should ever be done, and if anyone has a differing opinion of that, then they are automatically wrong, "because that is how it is done." It has nothing to do with that person (who is actually following a guideline) supposedly doing something wrong. If it is done wrong, or right, is no longer the issue. This is one of the bad things about GWW that I would like to see not be repeated here, and it seems you want to be starting it already.

The problem is that people expect someone to accept a "viewpoint" like it is some holy writ, when stated guideline doesn't back that viewpoint person's claim. When someone uses that guideline to prove their point, it is treated like the person showing the stated guideline is an idiot for suggesting such a thing. It is even worse when there is no accepted Guideline or Policy on this wiki. How can you reasonably expect someone to automatically know what people think? Since you claim that is "how things are done," then have it set out in policy and guideline pages specifics of "how it is done." It will save embarrassment when the provable documentation keeps slapping thoughts down. 42 - talk 06:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

In your little quote from capitalization, I noticed you missed the word "may", aka optional. So, we don't have to capitalize the professions. Also, you say the wiki is a book; more accurately, it's an encyclopedia. And from a few of the online articles from some of the well-known encyclopedias, they use the same formatting that is currently in place. from Worldbook Online --JonTheMon 14:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I notice you also missed the definition of "guideline" aka not a policy, aka set in stone. Try looking that up.

You also seem to miss something else. In reality, an encyclopedia is more like a dictionary with a lot of attitude. And dictionaries do not capitalize words unless they are capitalized in normal use.

Try taking a look at a game manual that comes with a game, doesn't matter if it is as complex as GW is or not. Probably about 90% of the ones I have seen use title case on the major divisions. I don't have it handy, but I am pretty sure that GW does as well. The parallel here is the page titles.

Using laziness (which is more than likely the main reason title case is not used properly in those examples you presented) as an excuse doesn't make it right. That is like saying that because everyone speeds, it shouldn't be illegal anymore. Explaining that the wiki cannot technically handle a certain method, instead of trying to excuse it, totally different. Still doesn't mean it is proper English. 42 - talk 04:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

IMO it's implausible that the editors of four of the UK's five major newsmagazines decided against using "improper" case simple because they were. As for using encyclopedias as examples of standard or "proper" formatting, IMO our closest print media counterparts are encyclopedias and video game strategy guides. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Guideline vs policy: irrelevant here. And what you are missing is that using lower case is as valid as using title case; it'd be like saying driving on the left side of the road is wrong. Depending on where you are at, it's not wrong; but that's because it was decided that way. Use lower case was decided before and that is perfectly valid and it is perfectly valid for this wiki. --JonTheMon 08:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It has less to do with their specific use or non-use of it. It has been proper use before, people in general have gotten lazy about proper use. They are following what they think is proper I am sure. As far as video game strategy guides, there is no clear "decision" one way or the other. As I have said, many of the ones I have seen use title case. The ones that haven't seem to use all lower case, not even using sentence case for section headings.

An encyclopedia is like a dictionary, in that, if the word being looked up is capitalized in normal everyday use, no matter what "case", then it will be in there. That is also not a clear arguement for or against, as it is a phrase or a word, not an article title. 69.182.220.38 04:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed rename

I propose that this be "moved" (renamed) to Capitalization Guideline, as that title is more accurate to the intent of this proposal. 42 - talk 07:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, was going to do it myself, but it seems that I can do no right (despite actually following a guideline from another wiki) which is supposedly how it is done here. 42 - talk 06:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is this a standalone guideline?

If you remove the GWW vs GW2W stuff from the front, the unnecessary recitation of grammatical rules, and the inclusion of spelling and punctuation (doesn't match the content of the page indicated by the article header) there are 3 sentences of guideline. It doesn't matter whether in-game capitialisation is enforced or not, whether sentence or title case is selected (as per discussion above) it works out the same. It is too short for a separate guideline.

The article should be moved or merged into a general formatting guideline, trimmed of the lecturing about grammar and stuff about GWW. -- Aspectacle  06:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)