Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Capitalization of universe - request for comment

This thing is all over the place. If I were to guess, the reason why it's so long and convoluted is, in my opinion (and is mentioned by several editors), that it's fundamentally malformed.

It immediately assumes everyone agrees that there's consensus to change something and codify it into the page, and that by participating in it, your duty is to only choose one of two changes. This is likely why several people rejected the format and started alternate proposals below it, but doing so makes it extremely difficult for anyone to patrol for a closure, because we then have to assume (perhaps wrongly so) that alternatives are implicit opposes. Given the alternatives also don't contain opposition sections, and that they were added after-the-fact, it's difficult to determine who's supporting or opposing what in relation to what appeared as an option for support and when. On top of all of this are random straw polls that are basically out of process and likely confusing to all involved.

To avoid this happening, consider starting a new RFC. Take the input from both the supports of the two original items as well as the input from the alternatives and the discussion below it, and aggregate them into separate, mutually exclusive, specific, clear items, with both support and oppose sections for each individual option.

Alternatively, run separate RFCs starting with a single proposed change that's assumed to have the greatest support, and if it fails to obtain consensus by the time it's over, then take the supporting/opposing rationales given and incorporate them into a new RFC, again, with a single question on the table.

As for the stuff that was there from the start (TLDR):

  • No consensus for option 1.
  • Input given on the others is sufficiently convoluted and unclear to me, so also no consensus. At best it looks like most are arguing against capitalizing the "u" in "universe" as a general concept, but as to whether the proposed change to the page as it's written has consensus and should be implemented, I don't feel there's sufficiently clear agreement (as compounded by the aforementioned issues with the RfC).
--slakr\ talk / 23:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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.

Should the sentence at MOS:CELESTIALBODIES be changed

1. by adding "universe" so that the text reads:

The words universe, sun, earth, moon and solar system are capitalized (as proper names) when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body ...

or


2. by adding "but not universe" and removing "as proper names" as below:

The words sun, earth, moon and solar system are capitalized (as proper names but not universe) when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body ...

The text above, and the notifications and headings below were developed collaboratively at User:SchreiberBike/Workspace/Universe. SchreiberBike talk 00:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


The following pages have been notified

Add "universe" to the sentence

(please add a "#" and your reasons followed by ~~~~)

  1. Choice 1 if our only choice is between choices 1 & 2, otherwise choice 4 is far better. We have outside style guides and universities and science organizations using different capitalizations of Sun, Earth, Moon, Solar System and Universe. Right now, Wikipedia MOS capitalizes sun, earth, moon and solar system but seems to have left off universe, which has led to some arguing. The Wikipedia Astronomy Project appears to have tried to fix things with an Rfc that added universe to the list. And now we're here. I think consistency is what's called for to make it easier on our many readers and editors. In general descriptions they can all be uncapitalized, and when talking in astronomical terms about our own Sun, our own Moon and our own Universe, capitalization I think works best. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. The self-stated goal of the MOS is “to make using Wikipedia easier and more intuitive by promoting clarity and cohesion while helping editors write articles with consistent and precise language, layout, and formatting”. In other words, the raison d’être of the MOS is to promote clarity through use of concise language and harmonisation of style. What is important here is internal consistency. It is clear that some sources capitalise Universe and some don’t, which means that MOS is free to choose whichever of the two is most consistent with its style. The accepted existing style is to capitalise the names of specific celestial bodies (Earth, Sun, Solar System), so for consistency of style, Universe should also be capitalised when used as the name of a specific celestial body, as endorsed agreed by those editors who expressed a clear opinion at Talk:WP Project Astronomy. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)<br/Just to be clear, I do not dispute that many sources do not capitalise Universe, but there are also several that do, most notably Nature (7 out of the first 9 hits found in a search for Nature news items consistently treat Universe as a proper noun) and also Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (MNRAS) (14 out of the first 16 hits found in this search in MNRAS abstracts consistently treat Universe as a proper noun). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. We should capitalise when referring to our Universe, but lower case when referring to other possible universes. Capitalisation provides a useful and important distinction, particularly in articles which discuss both. This is consistent with the usage for galaxy, solar system etc. It is also in keeping with the style used in professional astronomy e.g. scientific journals (I checked the typesetter's guide for MNRAS, and it's also in the style for the International Astronomical Union). The other options appear nonsensical to me - why should universe be treated differently to other astronomical terms? Modest Genius talk 15:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
    @Modest Genius, if you can provide a link to the IAU and MNRAS guides that actually recommend capitalizing "Universe" (not implied, but actually explicitly recommend), then that would be useful. I ask because I have searched both places and haven't found that. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
    The IAU style manual is at [1]; section 6.13 specified that 'individual astronomical objects' should be capitalised - the Universe is an individual astronomical object and fits the examples given there. The MNRAS guide is unfortunately not online (but offline sources are OK). It states: "APPENDIX B: SPELLING, HYPHENATION, ITALICIZATION, CAPITALIZATION [...] Universe (our) but general/model universe". Modest Genius talk 13:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    Update: I've been asked for more detail on the MNRAS guide, so here it is: 'MNR Copyediting Style Sheet', Oxford University Press, 4 September 2013. No author specified (well actually it's specified as 'A. Author, B. Author, C. Author and D. Author' but that's obviously a placeholder). Modest Genius talk 19:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    Okay, but just for clarity, the IAU guide does not mention "universe". This issue has been discussed previously. If one interprets the universe to be an astronomical object, one deserving of a name, then, yes, the IAU may be *interpreted* to mean that "Universe" should be capitalized. But that is an inference only. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    Fair point, but to me that seems like such an obvious inference that it's essentially the same thing. When discussed in astronomical contexts, is the Universe a celestial object? Well, is the pope a catholic (or even a Catholic)? It seems that obvious to me. Modest Genius talk 00:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. This has to be on the short list of the nuttiest topics I have seen in an RFC, which is saying a lot! Options 1 , 4 and 6 have their merits, but the walls of text (as far as I have read them, and I shall read them no further) ignore or misunderstand the fact that the brackets round "as proper names" should be deleted. It doesn't matter a dam what anyone's style manual or dictionary says about these words or similar ones or any others for that matter; when the intention is to use them as proper names (or proper nouns if you like) in English, then they should be capitalised, full stop. (I assume here that in other languages, such as German, the rule is somewhat different,but that is not relevant here.) When not, then, subject to syntax, not. Eg: "Spacecraft launched from Earth,as opposed to those launched from the Moon or Mars, or from other moons such as Deimos..." or again: "Rockets launched from earth, as opposed to those launched from the concrete platforms or Nylon rafts..." There is no point to arguing about whether to capitalise "universe" when we fail to understand or agree with the philosophy by which a particular author elects to see or represent the word as a proper noun and capitalise it accordingly; that is his point and his choice; to override it is not to impose a style, it is to override content, which is wildly improper. To justify that we would have to demonstrate that the intention in the relevant context is unencyclopaedic, which is not something about which we can generalise in a standard such as this; it needs to be shown in context. Until we have done that, all we can observe in good faith is that proper nouns generally get capitalised (with proper exceptions such as "ffinch-ffarrowmere" or "e. e. cummings") and common nouns do not generally get capitalised except in syntactic contexts such as at the start of sentences. JonRichfield (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Where it's a proper name capitalise it. Where it's not don't. It's like "god" or "moon". Jimp 23:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. I'm mostly here, per Modest Genius. I also support option 4. I do acknowledge that treating "universe" as a proper name is done in a minority of sources, but it is still fairly common, especially in astronomy sources. Therefore, especially for astronomy-related articles (where this obviously comes up most often), there's ample support in sources to make this a valid choice. Treating "universe" as a proper name adds clarity in places where the word is also used as a common noun; sometimes, the word is used both ways in the same sentence. Therefore, capitalization is helpful in distinguishing the meaning of the word. The argument that Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization is specious: I could have written this entire comment without a single capital letter, and the meaning would have been perfectly clear. But capitalization is helpful. Capitalizing "universe" when it is used as a proper name is also logically consistent with the treatment of "earth", "sun", "moon", "galaxy", and "solar system". Other sources treat varying subsets of those words as proper names when using them as the name of the one we live in (or closest to, in the case of "moon"), but I think the consistent approach is all or none. Capitalizing the other words I listed is much more common (to varying extents) in sources than capitalizing "universe". Since there is an existing consensus to treat most or all of the others as proper names (correctly, in my opinion), I think that treating "universe" the same way is best.
    Lastly, I don't think that the RfC is well constructed. I'm worried about excessive prescription in the MOS (though, given that there's clear disagreement about this particular issue both inside an outside Wikipedia, there's merit to picking a convention, making it explicit, and sticking with it), and I also think that determining a convention to follow and choosing the wording for the MOS (including the choice of whether to mention "universe" and the other celestial objects and concepts with common nouns used as proper names at all) should be separate, consecutive (not parallel and certainly not commingled) discussions.
    Though I prefer the convention of treating universe as a proper name when appropriate, I recognize that this is simply a pick-a-convention thing and am fine with either convention. I feel more strongly about keeping sun, earth, moon, solar system, and galaxy as proper names when appropriate (since those are much more commonly proper names in sources). If Wikipedia chooses not to go for logical consistency, that's fine: a majority of English language sources choose inconsistency on this matter too.
    Disclaimer: I am a professional astronomer, which may entail biases others have mentioned. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 08:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Add "but not universe" and remove "as proper names"

(please add a "#" and your reasons followed by ~~~~)

  1. Of the four known style guides that express an opinion, three say do not capitalize universe. Dictionaries do not capitalize universe, or allow it either way, and where it's either way that supports Choice 2 because MOSCAP says don't capitalize unless a word is capitalized consistently. N-grams that we have tried show lower case is more popular in printed books that Google is aware of (and yes we tried with astronomical phrases). Three of the sources do capitalize things like Earth but do not capitalize universe, suggesting that authorities failed to see that any argument by analogy is applicable. Saying (use lower case always) is also the simple choice, whereas saying (it depends on what's a "proper name" and what's a "specific celestial body") has led to two editors making different capitalization choices when given actual examples. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. If one has to choose only between 1 and 2, this would be preferable, but I have added option 3 which is even better. Option 2 is not great, as it tends to strengthen the dichotomy between universe and solar system, rather than clarifying that the latter should not usually be capitalized either. Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Capitalizing "universe" brings attention to the word in an undue manner. We capitalize proper nouns to distinguish them as individuals from generic objects, and this holds for the other celestial objects. With "universe," there is just no alternative but the one and only universe. More informally, capitalizing just looks silly to me. -Jordgette [talk] 05:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
    Re: one and only universe... not sure if that is correct. Consider the distinction between: "Within the universe of comic book super heroes, Superman is the most famous" and "Black holes are one of the least understood phenomenon in the Universe". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 13:26, 4 February 2015
    "no alternative but the one and only universe". That is simply not true. There are many discussions in the scientific literature of other possible universes (e.g. which have different physical laws to ours, see multiverse), and even more in science fiction (e.g. the Star Trek universe). Modest Genius talk 15:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. (1) I don't think that any compelling arguments have been presented that capitalization is preponderantly favored either in contemporary usage or by style guides. (2) I can't see that capitalization would ever be necessary to distinguish the totality of things in our experience from hypothetical other universes; such distinctions are effected, in every case I can think of, by means of qualifying words—"our universe", etc. (3) The capitalization of the English words referring to Terra, Luna, and Sol in certain astronomical contexts depends on each word's denoting "a specific celestial body". The universe, however, is not a specific celestial body. Deor (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. (a) It seems intuitive to me that universe is not capitalised although I would struggle to explain the rational. (b) I am neutral on the removal of the words "as proper names". Solar System is only capitalised as a proper name. A solar system is not capitalised. SPACKlick (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. I believe "sun", "solar system", and "moon" should be initial-capped when referring to "Sol", its solar system, and "Luna" (our moon)—explicitly when preceded by "the": "the Sun", "the Solar System", "the Moon". It seems to be a useful distinction between our own celestial bodies and the zillions of others.

    Opinions vary among astronomers concerning U/universe—I've worked with two who insisted on the U. But the fact that the literature is inconsistent indicates that our house style should prevail: WP avoids unnecessary capitalisation. There's no doubt what "the universe" is, unless it's metaphorical ("a universe of ideas", but that's hardly likely to confuse in the context). I suppose the multiverse theory brings up the scenario of "Universe" as our universe among many universes (analogous to the moon, sun, solar system distinction), but really, downcasing generally seems the better way to go. If consensus were against this, I'd suggest a compromise in the choice of either as long as within-article-consistent. Tony (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

  7. I struggle to see the utility of capitalizing Universe. But I also think option 3 is preferable to this one because it seems to me that solar system doesn't need to be capitalized for the same reason. Edit: this is a little problematic because the solar system isn't a "celestial body", is it? AgnosticAphid talk 19:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    Yes it is... as is a galaxy or nebula. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  8. Our MoS says "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. Most capitalization is for proper names or for acronyms. Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." The meaning of the first sentence has been present since this edit in December 2007. The third sentence has been in place since this edit (discussion here) in December 2011, though it has been streamlined since then.

    I haven't found instances where capitalization of universe is necessary.

    The lists below of the first ten results of searches for "universe" in #Google Books, #Google Scholar, #Google News and #Google Search show that lower case is used about nine times out of ten.

    Proper name is difficult to define around the edges, and I think trying to do so in our MoS would be difficult. Instead I think our practice of considering words to be a proper names when they are consistently capitalized in sources works well. SchreiberBike talk 18:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

    It isn't "necessary" to capitalize earth, moon, solar system, and sun either, yet we do. We have lots of sources that don't and many style guidelines don't. But we do based on consensus. So no real big deal with universe or galaxy either and it keeps things consistent for astronomy articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    Exactly. If the argument is purely about necessity, we should capitalise none of them. If it is about sources alone, we would end up with a MOS that promotes inconsistent units, incorrect grammar, and inconsistent capitalisation. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  9. This is where I am, because it is easiest to implement, most conventional (by counts of usage in books, for example,), and because many (and, possibly, most) published manuals of style recommend it. Why should Wikipedia take an unconventional decision? Capitalizing "universe" does not, as far as I can see, add anything, and does not reduce ambiguity. I am also think that adding "universe" to the list of words that need to be capitalized, under "certain" circumstances (and those circumstances are not always clear, especially in discussing historical notions), will lead to additional discussion about whether or not nearly synonymous words, like "cosmos", "nature", etc. should also be capitalized, again under "certain" circumstances. So, to me, not capitalizing "universe" is preferable. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  10. Sources are inconsistent and generally un-capitalize "universe", therefore we should not unnecessarily capitalize "universe" (or "solar system", per alternative #3). Further, I support the de-capitalizing of those articles affected by the prior misinterpreation of the MoS and would volunteer to help if there are many hundreds of such pages. Xaxafrad (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
    This would also be the case with earth, moon and sun. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
    The case with "earth", "moon", and "sun" should be addressed in a different RfC after this one has closed (whether with consensus or without). Those three words were added after discussion and consensus was achieved. Because it was added without discussion, "solar system" is, IMO, effectively in the same boat as "universe". That being said, it is also IMO that all the alternative options are void for the sake of this RfC. That so much discussion has been made of alternatives indicates there will be at least one, or more, RfCs following this one. Xaxafrad (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
    Wonderful... more rfc's. So the section on alternatives should be ignored/voided by the closing administrator in your opinion? Great. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
    For this RfC, yes. There's no reason not to reference or copy it to a new section to discuss changing the overall wording of the policy page. Xaxafrad (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  11. Dо not mention the universe either way. It is not a celestial body but rather a group of celestial bodies, so the rule on capitalization of celestial bodies does not apply to it. “WarKosign” 07:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
    Just so I'm clear...if you want neither then you should put this in option 6. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
    The RfC is between two options - add "universe" or add "but not universe". I say - add neither just as you wouldn't add "green", it's irrelevant to a rule concerning celestial bodies. As long as I am limited to the two options, better to add "but not universe" since the universe (which is not a celestial body) should not be capitalized. “WarKosign” 08:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
    And yet this rfc was created with a discussion and "alternatives" section where we have also commented. So you seem to be saying that you wish there were more original choices, but you weren't given that option. We do disagree on whether it's a celestial body but that's simply opinion. Do you feel that a solar system or a galaxy is a celestial body? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
    "solar system" and "galaxy" are outside the purview of this RfC. The alternatives were added after much discussion was made to specifically keep this RfC narrow, which is has not. Said alternatives should be addressed in a subsequent RfC. Xaxafrad (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
    So limiting on legitimate alternatives and then more rfc's that could revert the outcome of this rfc? It's a very strange rfc with all the limitations but hey, I guess if one edits at wikipedia long enough one will see most everything. Maybe I'm out of step and limiting choices is the way it's done now... and taking things as a whole is passe. Live and learn as my gaffer used to say. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
    As ASHill said: "I also think that determining a convention to follow and choosing the wording for the MOS (including the choice of whether to mention "universe" and the other celestial objects and concepts with common names used as proper names at all) should be separate, consecutive (not parallel and certainly not commingled) discussions."
    We'll have the discussion on keeping or changing the wording, and the many possible ways to change it, after this RfC is closed (I expect "no consensus", in which case we can throw the word "universe" into the discussion on overall wording). Xaxafrad (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  12. For a combination of reasons, considering the matter from a number of perspectives, I can see no strong or substantial case for capitalising 'universe' in the specified context.
  • Arguments for universe to be a proper noun based on there being a specific referent have not negated that a specific referent is created by use of the definite article (the). In examples proposing it to be a proper noun, is it is coupled with the definite article. There is no conclusive evidence (by way of a statement to this effect) that universe (in the context) is a proper name and good evidence, by way of usage with the definite article, that it is a common noun.
  • Arguments that capitalisation of 'our universe' is required for distinction is contrary to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Do not use for emphasis.
  • Evidence of sources (both style guides and wider usage) do not show that it is consistently capitalised in the context. 'Universe' does not meet the threshold of consistency required by the MOS:Caps.
  • Where 'universe is capitalised in sources, these tend to be secialised and do not support capitalising (see Wikipedia:Specialist style fallacy).
  • I conclude that a case for capitalising (or not) a group of words (as has been proposed herein) is arbitrary and superficial, since it ignores that the strength of the rationale for capitalising individual words within the group may be and likely is, substantially different.
  • I perceive, on the basis of submissions made by others, that no action or outcome may be an endorsement for an alleged consensus made elsewhere. I also perceive a need to make explicit any decision regarding capitalisation of universe, since past actions strongly suggest that omission of a specific reference may and is likely to be construed as consent.
  • The degree of division apparent here strongly suggests that any attempt to consider the range of full range terms more holistically (with all the possible combinations), would be doomed not to find any consensus.
  • I see no evidence that 'universe' is generally acknowledged as a Capitonym.
Cinderella157 (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC) 06:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion and alternatives

Alternative Three, added late: Remove "solar system" from list to capitalize

Since "solar system" was a relatively late and never-discussed addition to the list, I think we can move toward a more typical style, more consistent with the spirit of the lead of MOS:CAPS, by this change:

by removing "solar system" so that the text reads:
The words sun, earth, and moon and solar system are capitalized (as proper names) when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body ...

Feel free to support here if you prefer it to the original two alternatives, and discuss below if you don't. Dicklyon (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

What the heck is this addition? If it remains I'm adding more alternatives. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

(please add a "#" and your reasons followed by ~~~~)

  1. I think this is the best way to move toward more consistency; as pointed out previously, the change that added "solar system" to the list was a "Christmas special" and never discussed. Since sources seldom capitalize solar system, we should not either. Leaving it out of the list here does not preclude the possibility that in some context it might be capitalized if we specifically need to distinguish the system around Sol from systems around other stars, but that's very seldom how it is used. Dicklyon (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    I would support the removal of 'solar system' from the list to capitalise; however, this is presumptive of 'universe' not being included. Certainly, discussion has indicated a likely RfC to remove 'solar system' from the list (possibly depending on the outcome of this RfC). Adding an extra dynamic to this discussion potentially compromises the likelihood of reaching a consensus on the subject of capitalising 'universe' by diverting focus from the primary question that has been asked. This issue was discussed in drafting this RfC (see User:SchreiberBike/Workspace/Universe). I support your position but not adding this as an option at this point in time. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    What she said. Also, we can always specify with "Sol system" when we need to. That would be clearer than changing capitalization. — kwami (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. For the purposes of this RfC, I support this alternative for the reasons stated by Dicklyon. (edit: As sources are inconsistent in their capitalization of both "solar system" and "universe", per established MoS statements, capitalization should not be recommended, and, I believe, discouraged.) I further support the de-capitalizing of those articles affected by the prior misinterpreation of the MoS (edit: I would volunteer to help if there are many hundreds of pages). (2nd edit: added my comments to option 2, per closer consideration of Cinderella157's replies above.) Xaxafrad (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Alternative Four, added late: Consistency: Capitalize celestial bodies

Mostly on par with the International Astronomic Union, "individual astronomical objects should be printed as capitals." The new text will read:

The words earth, moon, sun, solar system, galaxy, and universe are capitalized (as proper names) when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body.

(please add a "#" and your reasons followed by ~~~~)


  1. I think this is the best way to move forward. It keeps the present text and adds Galaxy and Universe. Consistency for our readers and editors makes this very easy to apply. Choice 5 below is almost as good and it is also very consistent and easy to follow and explain. But it requires removing capitals from earth, sun, moon and solar system, so some extra housekeeping would be required for many articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. I'm amazed galaxy wasn't on the list already. It should be capitalised when referring to our Galaxy (the Milky Way, but not for other galaxies (e.g. the Andromeda galaxy). See my reasoning above. Modest Genius talk 15:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. This is most consistent and proper option: in line with proper English to capitalize proper nouns. And when these words are used to refer to a specific celestial body, these are definitely proper nouns. --JorisvS (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    This option is based on the premise that 'all' of these are proper names and not appellatives with a specific referent as a result of using the definite article, in more than one case. Solar systems are not named and our galaxy has a proper name (not 'the Galaxy'). 'Universe' is similarly, not a proper name. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    Although our galaxy indeed has a name that is better to use, if people refer to it using "galaxy", then this word is used as a proper noun. Similarly, other planetary systems are often referred to using "solar system", by analogy with our own (the one named "Solar System", which is therefore a proper noun), but they are better referred to using "planetary system" ("Solar System" is still a proper noun regardless). They're not "appellatives", because that just means "common noun", and common nouns refer to classes of things, whereas proper nouns/names refer to specific instances. --JorisvS (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    A specific referent is a characteristic of a proper name but does not define a proper name since a specific referent is also achieved by application of a definite article to an appellative: "That is the Dog that ate the Chicken - quite clearly not. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    That's just wholly different, semantically as well as grammatically. "Dog" is a common noun (not an appellative, which is just a synonym for "proper noun/name"). In your example it is followed by a specifying phrase that cannot occur for actual proper names. Proper names cannot be followed by "that", because "that" introduces a restrictive (specifying) phrase, which is necessary when using common nouns to clarify which instance of the common noun is being referred to, but makes no sense with proper names. "The Solar System that has eight planets is our home" makes no sense, but "The Solar System, which has eight planets, is our home." does. --JorisvS (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, and "The solar system that has eight planets is our home" also makes sense, illustrating the linguistic value of distinguishing correctly between the solar system and the Solar System. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    I would be more inclined to say: "Our home is on one of the eight planets in the Sun's solar system." However, both of the other sentences make sense. I also note another argument being made for capitalisation as a distinction or emphasis. Proper names are capitalised; however, a name is not a proper name because it capitalised. The Dog, which ate the Chicken, is in the House. wikt:appellative is the more correct converse of 'proper name', as common name is a term for non-scientific names of plants and animals. [08:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)] Cinderella157 (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    Indeed "The solar system that has eight planets is our home.", without the caps, makes sense in the sense of "solar system" as a synonym of "planetary system". With the caps, however, "The Solar System that has eight planets is our home.", it makes no sense. This illustrates the difference in meaning between the two. Cinderella, proper nouns/names are opposed to common nouns, not common names. You're right that "a name is not a proper name because it capitalised", but I've never said that. --JorisvS (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Alternative Five, added late: Consistency: Lower case for celestial bodies

Mostly on par with AP and the Chicago Manual of Style. The new text will read:

The words moon, sun, solar system, galaxy, and universe are always lower case, even when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body. The earth should only be capitalized in the context of talking about other celestial bodies that are also capitalized.

(please add a "#" and your reasons followed by ~~~~)

Alternative Six, Neither

(please add a "#" and your reasons followed by ~~~~)

  1. Neither... I would suggest instead something along the lines of: "Words such as sun, earth, moon and solar system are capitalized (as proper names) when used in an astronomical context..." (bolded to show suggested change). This takes the concept of choice 1, but expands it... so we don't have to go through this same rediculous debate again for any other word (which might have similar issues) in the future. Blueboar (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
    This RfC addresses a narrowly defined question because the discussion immediately preceding (see above) became too blurred and irreconcilable if the scope was broadened. Essentially, it is a fair assessment that the underpinning question of this particular RfC should be addressed before making other changes which are presumptive of the outcome of this particular question. An amendment to "Words such as ...", appears to be presumptive of 'universe' being one such word. In short, other amendments can certainly be proposed to improve the section once this particular question has been resolved. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
    I would think that a section entitled "Discussion and alternatives" would be the place to discuss alternatives. No? Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
    I would certainly agree.Cinderella157 (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Neither – but we should make a more nuanced attempt to clarify that universe is seldom if ever capitalized, and neither is solar system. Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. No: In case anyone is still counting, no to all the alternatives of this "fresh RFC", for reasons stated in section #Use of evidence below. Evensteven (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Continued discussions

  • I noticed above that editor Peter Gulutzan wrote that "Of the four known style guides that express an opinion, three say do not capitalize universe" and "Dictionaries do not capitalize universe" and "Three of the sources do capitalize things like Earth but do not capitalize universe." This is where I say there's a problem with separating out the "Universe" from the other astronomical terms.
  • Looking at the AP Style Guide and the Chicago Style guide where they also tell us not to capitalize sun and moon. And Chicago Style guide goes further with the earth. It is not to be capitalized even when talking about it as a planet or our own earth. Only capitalize it when talking about other bodies that are also capitalized. So the rocket blasted off from Earth, will circle the moon and sun, and reach Mars. But, the rocket blasted off from earth and will circle the sun before arriving at the moon. And I noticed the Websters capitalizes Galaxy when talking about the galaxy we live in. NASA doesn't capitalize Solar System, but we do. Guides don't capitalize moon and sun, but we do.
  • My point is we don't follow any of these guides or dictionaries... taking them piecemeal and saying here's what is best, that's what we've done and are attempting to do again. It seems to me that what we have set up now is to capitalize all the terms when used in a astronomical situation. Earth, Sun, Moon, Solar System and by extrapolation it should be Galaxy and Universe when speaking of our own Galaxy and our own Universe. But it could just as easily be that we always use lower case earth, sun, moon, solar system, galaxy and universe; and only capitalize earth when in the presence of other capitalized celestial bodies. I lean towards capitalizing all of them when talking about our own, but being consistent is more important for our readers and editors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Fyunck, if you google "the universe is like a" you'll find it's like a torus / a clock / a fractal / a computer / a balloon. But I don't say "those are lower case therefore by analogy (or by extrapolation) (or for consistency) universe should be lower case" -- arguments by analogy can prove anything you like but aren't Wikipedia sources. By the way I wonder whether you misspoke when you said Wikiproject Astronomy had "an Rfc"? I saw what I called a consensus (possibly premature) on their talk page and an appeal to DRN, but this here MOSCAP discussion is the first RfC I'm aware of. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally another editor deleted my post above. I believe that was inadvertent, and have restored, but it shows we should be cautious when so much simultaneous editing is going on. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan I apologise if I did actually do anything that caused its deletion. It certainly was unintentional but I do recall something funny hapening.Cinderella157 (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Dondervogel 2, re "Universe should also be capitalised when used as the name of a specific celestial body, as endorsed at Talk:WP Project Astronomy." Sorry, I might have missed this but what I am seeing is an acknowledgement to defer the matter to this page (here) but I am not seeing what I would consider to be a consensus for capitalising 'universe'. Please point me in the right direction. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • What I see is lots of editors agreeing with capitalization, one complaining that the capitalization had been implemented too quickly and another suggesting that the discussion be continued here, which as far as I can tell is what we are doing. Of those who expressed a clear opinion, I do not see a single one opposed to capitalization. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Dondervogel, that discussion does not amount to an "endorsement" as you are asserting. I think your case would actually be stronger if you did not overstate this. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It is not my intention to misrepresent the discussion, but it needs to be summarised, and sometimes a desire for conciseness leads to over-simplification. Do you agree with the text as modified ? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
What I read, was that a question was posted at 0059 16 Jan. After a (small) number of comments which were either supporting capitalisation or not specific, the posting editor declared a consensus at 2112 16 Jan. The comment suggesting to direct discussion here occurred at 0103 17 Jan, after which, the tone of the discussion went down-hill pretty fast - or that is how I read it? Cinderella157 (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Dondervogel, no, I don't agree with that revision. The most you can say is that a number of editors supported capitalization. If you say those with "clear opinions", then will alienate those who did not support capitalization or, at least, more discussion, thus undermining your own heart-felt stance on this issue. Balance is important. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, likewise it is not my intention to alienate anyone. It was a lengthy discussion (though not as lengthy as the one here) and I do not recall all of the details. Did I miss a statement arguing against capitalisation?
  • (ec) Regarding alternatives, many of those opposed to capitalisation advise against "unnecessary capitalisation". I guess it is hard to argue that capitalization is essential (after all, the world is not exactly going to stop spinning either way), which means that all capitalization is unnecessary. More specifically, if universe is not capitalised, then neither should earth or solar system. I have no problem with a MOS that clearly states that none of these words are considered proper nouns, and therefore none are capitalised. What matters is consistency. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Fyunck, I see that Isambard Kingdom has disposed of your claims about IAU and NASA in the "Evidence supporting" section, but I welcome your repeat mention of Marcelo Gleiser's blog post, because: if we accept it as an authority then it harms your cause considerably. He says that the common usage is to always write "universe" (which supports choice 2), and then as he dislikes that fact so much he sets out his own capitalization scheme -- a scheme which is very different from choice 1. This is evidence "Evidence against capitalization when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

He did not dispose the IAU and NASA evidence. He wanted me to clarify certain aspects of what I wrote. And to each his own on Gleiser. He also wrote that "the word "universe" sometimes is capitalized and sometimes not." And you say very different. I would say simply different than choice 1. However very very very different than choice two. So it's interpretation. Editors here can read his writing and decide for themselves if his thoughts are closer to choice 1 or choice 2. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Deor said above that it's not. Celestial body redirects to a page that says "Typically, an astronomical (celestial) body refers to a single, cohesive structure that is bound together by gravity (and sometimes by electromagnetism)." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The proponents have implied so, by their arguments even before this RfC, that universe should be included. However, the the semantics of the sentence should not divert the focus from the underpinning question. Once resolved, peripheral issues can be more easily addressed. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: please reconsider your idea of adding what you call a third "alternative". Our problem in this thread is capitalization of universe -- see the topic title, the first post explaining why it has come up, and the many arguments following. Adding a proposal about Solar System, which doesn't even address the problem of capitalization of universe, might put us back to square one. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, the RFC as presented is a false dichotomy. There are at least 3 active options already: Leave it as is, make change 1, or make change 2. The changes focus on "universe", which I argue is not the crux of the issue that needs to be resolved, as there's nothing in there about it at present and there shouldn't need to be. I did note that if we are going to choose between 1 and 2 I would much prefer 2, but I don't see it as much of a positive step, for reasons I noted. It seems to me that an RFC is to get input, more than to force a choice. Let's at least wait and see whether my option 3 attracts any support. Maybe it won't. Dicklyon (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@Dicklyon, I totally agree with the comments you make regarding the 'dichotomy'. The question is one of process - whether it is best to address this sequentially or by adding an additional alternative which might ultimately mean that no consensus is reached for any proposition. In terms of meeting protocols, I would suggest that an amendment to 'solar system' has been foreshadowed. As for an outcome of 'no change', some have suggested that this would effectively default to 'change 1' (see User:SchreiberBike/Workspace/Universe. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@Dicklyon:So you will withdraw option 3 if it attracts no support? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Some editors have wondered why it is necessary to be concerned about Universe/universe, and/or why the concern is limited to Universe/universe and not other possibly-capitalizable astronomical words. I have dwelt on this at length, but apparently did not do so well enough, so here is an even lengthier reply.

  1. The matter of "universe" has been a specific concern several times in the past, as shown by comments on the Age of the universe article and some related articles after discussions here, here, here, here, here, here,here, and here. When a subject is repeatedly raised in multiple talk pages, that indicates it's an ongoing concern.
  2. An example of an old edits, showing how an editor has changed universe to Universe based on very poor authority ([2] Wiktionary), is here and here.
  3. Recently the idea of changing universe to Universe came up on the Wikiproject Astronomy talk page. The discussion is here, and noticeably the topic is universe/Universe specifically. The result was declared to be a consensus (yes there is argument about whether it should have been), and so an editor changed many Wikipedia articles, from universe to Universe.
  4. Some examples -- a tiny subset -- of the Wikiproject Astronomy changes are here, here, here, here, here, here. Notice that sometimes the edit summaries say that the change is "according to the MoS", which I suppose must mean the MoS as interpreted by this editor.
  5. Before somebody says "well this editor maybe shouldn't have done this", let me observe that this is done with the approval of a Wiki Project and there is nothing -- no policy, no guideline -- that explicitly says it's improper. If WikiProject Astronomy decides to change hundreds of pages, they'll freely do so unless something with more authority overrides their decision. A reasonable choice of authority is MoS.
  6. There was a Dispute-Resolution-Noticeboard incident here about the conduct of one of the WikiProject Astronomy editors. It resulted in a stripping of WP:AWB authority; however, the administrator did not decide about the edits' contents. The January 18 concluding remarks included the sentence

    As specified by several editors below, the discussion itself may be better held at WP:MOS, which would also attract editors with experience in linguistic knowledge, in addition to those from WikiProject Astronomy (and the result potentially integrated into the MOS itself - and if required, resolved via WP:RFC).

  7. After that conclusion, I took it to a MoS talk page with due notice and ceremony. It could have gone straight to an RfC instead, but it turns out that it makes no difference -- we're in an RfC now anyway.
  8. A "compromise", merely demanding that an article's original wording must be left alone unless decide otherwise on the article's talk page, was not accepted.
  9. The above are simply facts. I will add an opinion: if it is hard to change this MOSCAP section for universe/Universe, it will be harder to change for words that have been established for three years (like Solar System) or for ten years (like Sun/Moon/Earth), and therefore adding more terms will make it more difficult to get universe/Universe decided.

Thus: we have a problem, it relates to universe/Universe, it affects many pages, the directive was to take it to a MoS page, it can be solved by a small change in MoS, other things cannot be. Of course it could be solved by declaring capitalization is correct, and the RfC has that option. Of course it could be solved by declaring capitalization is incorrect, and the RfC has that option. Of course it could be ignored, and the RfC very correctly does not have that option -- it would mean that Wikiproject Astronomy's decision stands, and therefore it is exactly the same as saying capitalization is correct. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this synopsis. It helps those of us who weren't there on the ground floor, to get a sense of what has gone before. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Fyunck: I saw your comment about OED in the "Evidence supporting lower case..." section. I already told everyone about that on 16:00, 19 January and thereafter. Eventually I suppose I (or somebody else on the pro-universe side) will have to clear out the junk in that section and put in all the facts that are already known. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

To anyone wondering about MNRAS (Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society): its instructions for authors are here. It doesn't mention our topic, but says "For any other spellings, use whichever version is listed first in the Oxford English Dictionary." That is: "universe". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I have provided the quotation from the typesetters guide above. The document you quote is the instructions to authors, which includes much less style information. The section you quote from also governs spellings, not capitalisation. Modest Genius talk 13:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Please let us know the title and author and publication date for this offline typesetters guide. The wording you quoted -- "Universe (our) but general/model universe" -- is more specific than what's in the online author guide, and supports the idea that somebody capitalizes universe if and only if it's "our Universe". That differs from what choice 1 says, but it looks like a valid point. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Done, next to the quotation above. Modest Genius talk 19:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I think, based on the (admittedly original research, but original research is OK in determining MOS style) set of examples compiled below, it's obvious that the MNRAS style is to capitalize Universe when using it as the name of the universe we live in. I see no reason at all to doubt the veracity of Modest Genius's quotation. I don't see how the MNRAS typesetter instructions are different than our proposal #1; could you clarify, Peter Gulutzan? And I also don't really see the relevance at this point: it's very clear to me that some sources capitalize Universe in this context, while some never do. We simply have a choice to make. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
(ec) I don't agree with the interpretation that the cited MNRAS text requires "our universe" to be capitalised. I would say it means "the Universe" is capitalised if and only if it refers to our universe. The "universe" in "our universe" would not be capitalised (in my interpretation) because here the word is used as a common noun, not a proper noun. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with that interpretation. The MNRAS guide seems to require that Universe is capitalized when it's used specifically referring to our universe, ie "The Universe is our universe" or "The Universe is the universe which contains the Galaxy" or "The Universe is the universe which contains the Milky Way galaxy." And the "(our)" in the typesetter's guide is meant to specify which universe is capitalized, not to say that "our universe" should have a capital U. Such fun.
I happen to be pretty thoroughly convinced that this is the best practice and the one that we should adopt for all such words, including sun, solar system, galaxy, etc, and as I proposed earlier, I think that this could be done generically without a long list of words that should be capitalized. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 17:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I accepted that User:Modest Genius made a point, although of course I asked for the author and title and publication date. I do not understand the interpretation that "Universe (our)" means "our Universe" is wrong but "the Universe which is our universe" is right. I do not understand the interpretation that our/the universe is sometimes a "specific celestial body" (the wording of choice 1) yet can cease to be a specific celestial body later in the same sentence when referred to as the same thing. But can we please make "examples of when to capitalize" a separate conversation? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The distinction is drawn between the single Universe which we live in, and possible other universes. This is the same as the usage in the same guides for our particular Galaxy as opposed to other galaxies. Modest Genius talk 19:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
In searching for usage of universe in reliable sources, I have found that the usage is often unclear. The author sometimes allows for ambiguity in what "universe" means; is it just our universe, the observable universe, or does it include the multiverse? In discussions with other editors, we have disagreed on when to capitalize and when to not. I suspect that is why many book and periodical editors have defaulted to lower case. SchreiberBike talk 22:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
But it appears many have defaulted to lower case earth, moon and sun also, so the actual reasons why some may have defaulted to lowercase universe may be multifaceted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@SchreiberBike: But this side thread is about the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society's in-house style guide, in which the usage is very clear and nearly-universally applied, based on the numerous examples compiled below. (In only one of the counter-examples in which universe is not capitalized is it actually used as a proper noun. Given the MNRAS typesetters' guide quoted above the plethora of MNRAS papers which follow that style, I think it's very safe to assume that the typesetters just erred in that case.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
That is taken way out of context since the spellings it's talking about are UK vs USA spellings, and items such as best-fitting vs best-fit... not capitalization by any stretch. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The quoted sentence "For any other spellings ...", i.e. spellings other than British-specific best-fitting etc., is moving on, so the claim that the context is still what's in a previous sentence would require an inability to understand the word "other". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Really stretching it there because the entire conversation was UK/USA specific. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
... ... And before somebody pops up claiming "but I found some MNRAS items saying Universe", here are five that say universe: 1 2 3 4 5. Finding isolated articles is an easy (though pointless) pastime. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Summing up the above interchange: I found a pro-choice-2 indirect statement in the online MNRAS authors guide, but Modest Genius found an offline style sheet that mentions Universe specifically -- "Universe (our)" -- and I accept it as a better source. I interpreted this as meaning "our Universe" is correct and once again it's easy to find an MNRAS example, here. Pro-Universe editors tell me it's not correct. But can we please make "examples of when to capitalize" a separate conversation? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Now I'm completely confused. I thought that determining if and when "universe" should be capitalized was the main object of this ridiculously-extended discussion. Am I wrong? Being a bear of little brain, I'm not sure how to do that without examples, since it is a quite subtle distinction between the lowercase and uppercase usage for those who think it should be capitalized when used as a proper noun. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 05:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
As you yourself said: "this side thread is about the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society's in-house style guide". Indeed it is. So after a bit of discussion about "our Universe" versus "our universe", I pleaded, let's not continue with "examples of when to capitalize" here, let's make it a separate conversation i.e. at the end of this discussion section, with no indent. I certainly didn't mean let's start a new thread outside this RfC thread! In fact I believe the newly-spawned threads outside this RfC thread have contributed nothing new or useful, and the same would be true of any other hypothetical fork. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
It absolutely is one of the things we are talking about. That's partly what this discussion section is for in case it gets determined that we should specifically add Universe to the MOS. That's not looking likely but you never know what an administrative closer will do. It could be done like the Chicago Style Manual does with the word earth... which is always lower case even when talking about our own planet earth. But earth is capitalized when talking about other celestial bodies that are also capitalized. So Earth, Andromeda Galaxy, Universe and Orion Nebula; but moon, earth, universe and sun. There's lots of ways we could go with the whole example of celestial bodies other than just treating them as proper nouns. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Examples are fine. I think the point is that the length of a list of examples means nothing except how much work someone put in; it says nothing about relative frequency in sources, unless examples done different ways are sampled in a comparable and relatively unbiased way. Dicklyon (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
our Universe is rare. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
If 'universe' were actually a proper noun, if would be capitalised as follows: "The universe [1] that we live in is our universe [2]. The Universe [3], which we live in, consists of everything which is observed." [1] is not capitalised as it is followed by that. [2] is associated with a possessive determinator and is not acting as a proper name (reason analogous to reason in [1]). Consider the analogy of: "The City (a metonym of the City of London) is our city. However, [3] is incorrect, as it is not a proper name since the specific referent results from use of the definite article. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I assume that earth, moon, and sun would work the exact same way in your example? They should. So it would be "The moon that we live near is our moon. The earth, which we live on, consists of all life that we know of." Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much although earth is somewhat an exception - it is more clearly a proper name, used without the definite article. 'Which' is not restrictive. Of course, the sentences of my examples don't sit well with the other words. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Per the Chicago Style Guide (which has to be the most mentioned guide by far in all my wikpedia conversations) the earth is not a proper name. It is only capitalized if it happens to be mentioned alongside other capitalized celestial bodies. So "the rocket took off from earth to head to the stars"... or "the rocket took off from Earth to head to Mars" or "the rocket took off from earth to circle the sun" would all be proper. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not favour CMOS on 'earth'. I find it an arbitary way of limiting the use of capitals that does not acknowledge the dichotomy of a Capitonym. It is superficial in a way similar to my analogy of cataloging bears. @Fyunck(click) (or anybody else), it might be useful if you could quote what CMOS actually has to say WRT 'earth' being a proper name. I am not suggesting an impropriety on your part but I am curious as to whether this is a quote or an interpretation and I don't have access. Thankyou. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: you said "Let's at least wait and see whether my option 3 attracts any support." It's attracted: Cinderella157 saying "I support your position but not adding this as an option at this point in time", kwami affirming Cinderella157 (I think), Fyunck exclaiming "What the heck is this addition?", and my objection -- I hope you have at least seen my long explanation above beginning with the words "Some editors have wondered". Now Dondervogel 2 says in Wikiproject Astronomy talk "I recommend ignoring all but the first 2 [choices] because the 3rd and subsequent choices were added late and distort the discussion". So, again, will you please withdraw choice 3? (I'm hoping of course that after that Fyunck will withdraw choice 4 and choice 5.) Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Consider it withdrawn. Fyunck has my permission to remove or strike that section if/when he removes or strikes the others. Dicklyon (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Dicklyon, thank you. User:Fyunck(click): you agree? As well as striking sections "A third alternative ..." + "Alternative Four ..." + "Alternative Five ...", I think it's legitimate to use Template:Cot, or remove the headings and move the sections (plus this bit of conversation if so desired) to a later place with some notation like "this was withdrawn by consent". I realize that simply removing the sections would remove short remarks within the sections by User:Cinderella157 and User:kwami and User:Modest Genius, who are hereby notified. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan: I have no idea what I'm being notified of here! The page is far too big and confusing to work out what's going where. If you want to re-factor or rearrange my comments then please go ahead, so long as you leave their content visible. Modest Genius talk 13:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
No worries. This was a request to Fyunck(click) about striking or deleting or marking as withdrawn. None of those things happened, and as far as I know the content of your comments wasn't changed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
One has received !votes so that can't be done now. However there was an original section made exactly for this... Discussion and alternatives. These are certainly alternatives and where they should have gone to begin with. This way nothing will have to be deleted yet they won't be part of the canon. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click):Okay, you refuse. I had assumed there would be no difficulty just because someone who "voted" twice cast a "vote" for a withdrawn choice, but okay, I assumed wrong. @Dicklyon: I understand that your withdrawal of choice 3 was conditional on Fyunck withdrawing Choice 4 and Choice 5, and the condition was not met. Anyone: feel free to revert Fyunck's changes which added yet another "choice" complete with what he's decided are votes, I'm too surprised to act. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think Fyunck is refusing. The way I read it he is removing the alternatives, and doing it in such a way that the discussion remains intact, leaving the way open for the RfC to focus on options 1 and 2. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. That's what the alternative section was for, as confirmed by others. I moved the alternates to that section away from the two main choices. And since 3 others had voted for "none of the above" I gave them their own subsection too, again, away from the main two choices. Not everyone agrees that it should have been two limiting choices in an open Rfc. Simply striking them would probably have meant also asking for striking of the "none of the above" choices too, which was silly. Now at least they're where they should be. And since I noticed editors complaining of the huge messy nature of this Rfc I straightened it out so they could find things. So @Peter Gulutzan:'s comment and ping really surprises me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Cinderella157 has claimed repeatedly but incorrectly that the case for capitalizing Universe relies on a) emphasis, b) it being preceded by a specific article. Both arguments are nonsense. No one is arguing for emphasis and no one says that the presence of "the" before a noun demands capitalisation. If we all lived in a place called Dog it would make sense to capitalize Dog on those grounds, but we don’t so it doesn’t. The Universe is the name of the place where we live and that is why it should be capitalized.

The issue as I see it is very simple. There are those of us (the Sourcists) who wishes to follow sources at all costs, because that is what the MOS says we must do. Others (the Harmonists) point at the goal of the MOS to facilitate harmonization. If that harmonization is better achieved by following a minority of sources than a majority, then so be it. There are after all many examples where we a deliberate choice has been made not to follow (a majority of) sources. For example the unit symbols Gbit/s, nmi, kn and many others are chosen not because the sources use them (they don’t!!!!!) but because these symbols are specified by international standards, the purpose of which is to harmonise.

Bottom line: Please stop repeating endlessly that we must follow sources because there are plenty of counter-examples. And please stop rubbishing our arguments with nonsense because that just degrades the entire debate. Instead let’s focus on the key issues so we can resolve this for once and for all. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I quote the following. It appears very much that the rational for capitalisation is one of emphasis.
Support capitalisation generally. "Universe" is the proper name of the cosmos we inhabit. This is especially true in astronomical contexts, and when it would benefit to distinguish our Universe prom [sic] hypothetical parallel universes.
"The Universe is the name of the place where we live and that is why it should be capitalized." By this, should we capitalise 'the house' because it is the house that we live in or 'the city' because it is the city that we live in? This argument to capitalise 'universe' has no strength'. I agree that there are sources which are of such consequence that they should be considered 'definitive' on a particular issue but I do not see any such source in this case. Perhaps the IAU style guide? But this matter is covered by it as general guidance on capitalisation. It is a general issue. This part of the IAU style guide is not an 'international standard'. The IAU style guide, on this matter, only confirms the observation that specialists tend to over-capitalise within their specialist area. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Did you notice the word "name" in the sentence "The Universe is the name of the place where ..."? Did you notice the absence of the word "name" in the sentence "The house is the place where ..."? If you did not notice, please read it again, take note of the use of the word name, and reconsider your reply. If you did notice and chose to ignore it, please reconsider whether you are making a helpful contribution to this debate. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry, I was waiting for somebody to make this claim and I missed it. It sounds much too contrived to be a credible statement. To paraphrase: "The name of the universe we live in is the 'Universe'." If this were true and reasonable, then it would be perfectly correct to write this in the lead of the Universe article. Furthmore, it could be substantiated by citation and not just example and support for capitalising 'universe' by example, is, at best, equivocal. Cinderella157 (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
That I consider the Universe a name for a place (a very big place, the ultimate place) is central to my argument, and has been so from the beginning. I gather from your reply that I have not made this point clearly so I make it again now, in a way that cannot be understood. The Universe should be capitalised because the Universe is a proper name and proper names are capitalised. We can agree to disagree on whether it is a name, and that is what this discussion should be about. Can we focus on that point? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
An amusing typographical error: "... so I make it again now, in a way that cannot be understood." There is no dispute that proper names are capitalised. To say: "The name of ...", implies a reference to a proper name and not an appellative. Not all objects have a proper name - no matter how big, unique or important. I do not dispute your belief but nor does your belief translate to the collective human consciousness - for this to happen, the "person" granting the name must be acknowledged in some way as having naming rights. I was being very focused. The case you are making is that: "If it is said that the name of X is Y, then Y is a proper name". This sort of empirical evidence can be a useful way of establishing if a name is actually a proper name; however, the flaw is that it is very prone to observer error through bias. If an observer is making this statement as a test, it relies on being able to distinguish whether the response is 'natural' or would be considered contrived and unnatural. A predisposition to one of the choices will tend to favour that choice. Similarly, posing the question to another (rather than observing it as an unsolicited utterance) creates an observational bias - to ask what is the (proper) name, implies that there must be a name. My last point too, is quite focused. If the universe has been named (has a name), then there will be evidence that the name is acknowledge - there will be statements in sources to the effect that: "The name of the universe is ... ". There are two important questions to ask in deciding if 'universe' is a proper name: is the specific referent a consequence of the definite article; and, is capitalisation 'necessary' to distinguish it from others of the same (common) name? Those supporting capitalisation (here) tend to deny the former and support the latter. The latter is a very strong case against it being a proper name. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@Dondervogel 2: Your continual belittling of the comments of those who disagree with you is noted, and I doubt if I am alone in considering them unhelpful contributions. They are also on a par with your value-laden mischaracterizations such as "sourcists" and "harmonists" above. I take it amiss to be labeled by others. I am quite able to assume labels for myself, if I choose to do so, but I think labeling is generally a tool of invective, and so I also take issue with your continued attempts to assign labels to everyone. I see no evidence whatever that anyone here (except maybe labelers) is not a "harmonist", assuming only that that means seeking an MOS and a discussion outcome that is somehow "in harmony". Yet you seem to think you have the inside scoop on what is in harmony and what is not. And in harmony with what? You don't define that. Narrow and focused approaches are highly convenient, permitting the automatic elimination of anything you don't want to consider, which is still your impediment. "Please reconsider whether you are making a helpful contribution to this debate." While you're at it, please reconsider that this is not supposed to be a debate. It is supposed to be a collegial discussion. There's a world of difference, and I also take issue with this your unhelpful attitude. Evensteven (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, right now I'm not seeing consensus for any change at all to the wording, which would leave us with the same uncertainty of interpretation. At the very least I hope we can get some degree of consistency "within" an article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Examples of the phrase "our Universe" or "our universe", assuming agreement to capitalize sometimes, quoting editors on this and related talk pages: (1) '... we should capitalize our Universe but not other hypothetical parallel universes' (user Reyk). (2) 'Oh, and "our universe" is correct! In this usage it is a common noun.' (user Shem).(3) '[the jpl.nasa.gov page] used Universe for specifically our Universe and universe for general talk' (user Fyunck). (4) '[I would have inferred the following capitalization given choice 1:] our universe is colliding with another universe in the Multiverse' (user Dondervogel 2). (5) 'We are talking about our Universe in astronomical terms here' ( user Fyunck). (6) 'We should capitalise when referring to our Universe ...' (user Modest Genius). (7) 'There may be billions of universes out there, but our Universe contains the Milky Way Galaxy.' (user Fyunck). (8) 'The MNRAS guide seems to require that Universe is capitalized when it's used specifically referring to our universe, ie "The Universe is our universe" or "The Universe is the universe which contains the Galaxy" ...' (user Alex). (9) '[an MNRAS style sheet and an MNRAS example article support:] our Universe' (user Peter Gulutzan). (10) 'If 'universe' were actually a proper noun, if would be capitalised as follows: "The universe [1] that we live in is our universe ..."' (user Cinderella157). That's 4 editors saying that, if there's agreement to capitalize sometimes, "our universe" is right -- versus 4 editors saying "our Universe". In other words, if there was agreement to capitalize sometimes, there would be no agreement what that means. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
And yet no one seems to have trouble with current MOS concept that lists earth, moon, sun, and solar system. What you are saying, forgetting the current universe debate, is that MOS's wording on earth, moon, sun and solar system, is an unworkable mess as it stands. Yet I've seen no major clamoring that it is such. As long as universe is capitalized or lowercased in the same context as the others, I'm good with it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), you err when you tell me what I am saying. I do not say that and do not believe it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
If you think no one has trouble with that you haven't been paying attention. Solar system was added to the list with zero discussion, and needs to be rolled back. For the others, more clear guideance would be useful. Dicklyon (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Evidence supporting capitalization when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body

The argument in favour of capitalization is not evidence-based, which makes me question the relevance of this heading. Nevertheless, one point worth making is that some reliable sources favour capitalisation of the Universe when used as a specific celestial body (the place in which we all live). I have started a list of such reliable sources below. Feel free to add it if you feel the list is important Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The lists of sources are not mutually exclusive. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The following official style manuals explicitly recommend capitalizing "Universe":

The following official style manuals explicitly recommend capitalizing "Solar System":

List of sources consistently using 'the Universe' throughout

Dondervogel, I suggest you hat these sections. Long lists of sources that do it your way are of no evidentiary value if you don't say how they were selected and how their numbers compare to the lowercase ones you encounter with similar searching (which is what was done below it was shown for example that 9 of the first 10 Google Scholar hits user lowercase). These long lists are just noise, not going to sway anyone. Dicklyon (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I have said repeatedly that the argument in favour of capitalisation is not evidence based. I started these lists to demonstrate that some reliable sources capitalise. If I fail to do this, the case for capitalization might be weakened by the (false) claim that "nobody capitalises, so WP would look foolish if it did". On the contrary, world-leading journals like Nature and Science do capitalise. Perhaps not in all articles (I have not checked), but at least consistently in some articles. One journal that seems to capitalise all the time is Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, although again, I do not claim these lists demonstrate this. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Out of curiosity I thought I'd try searching for "the universe" in news items at the Nature journal web site. Four out of the first five hits consistently use the Universe throughout (see new list just added, at the bottom). I did not look further than that. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Since making the above remark I have looked further, and find that both Nature (news articles) and MNRAS (abstracts) are consistent in their capitalisation of the Universe.
  1. Zeldovich, Y. B. (1972). A hypothesis, unifying the structure and the entropy of the Universe. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 160(1), 1P-3P. (consistently upper case)

    # Perlmutter, S., Aldering, G., Della Valle, M., Deustua, S., Ellis, R. S., Fabbro, S., ... & Walton, N. (1998). Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the universe. Nature, 391(6662), 51-54.

  2. Sato, K. (1981). First-order phase transition of a vacuum and the expansion of the Universe. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 195(3), 467-479. (consistently upper case)
  3. Efstathiou, G., Bond, J. R., & White, S. D. M. (1992). COBE background radiation anisotropies and large-scale structure in the universe. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 258(1), 1P-6P.
  4. Zeldovich, Y. B. (1980). Cosmological fluctuations produced near a singularity. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 192(4), 663-667.
  5. Persic, M., & Salucci, P. (1992). The baryon content of the universe. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 258(1), 14P-18P.
  6. Hawking, S. (1971). Gravitationally collapsed objects of very low mass. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 152(1), 75-78.
  7. Hawking, S. (1969). On the rotation of the universe. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 142(2), 129-141.
  8. Carr, B. J., & Hawking, S. W. (1974). Black holes in the early Universe. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 168(2), 399-415.
  9. Trimble, V. (1976). Cosmology. University of British Columbia. "The Universe is a universe whether capitalized or not."
  10. Livingstone, G. (2005). PaGaian Cosmology: Re-inventing Earth-based Goddess Religion. iUniverse. "Throughout this book I will be capitalizing words such as Moon, Sun, Earth, Universe, Cosmos ..."
  11. Sparke & Gallagher (2007). Galaxies in the Universe (2nd ed.). ISBN 1139462385. (junior level undergraduate astronomy major textbook) consistent upper case
  12. Zeilik & Gregory (1998). Introductory Astronomy & Astrophysics (4th ed.). ISBN 0030062284. (sophomore level undergraduate astronomy major textbook) consistent upper case
  13. Krauss, L. M., & Chaboyer, B. (2003). Age estimates of globular clusters in the Milky Way: Constraints on cosmology. Science, 299(5603), 65-69.
  14. Caldwell, R. R., Kamionkowski, M., & Weinberg, N. N. (2003). Phantom energy: dark energy with w<-1 causes a cosmic doomsday. Physical Review Letters, 91(7), 071301.
  15. Robin, A. C., Reylé, C., Derrière, S., & Picaud, S. (2003). A synthetic view on structure and evolution of the Milky Way. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 409(2), 523-540.
  16. Macciò, A. V., Kang, X., Fontanot, F., Somerville, R. S., Koposov, S., & Monaco, P. (2010). Luminosity function and radial distribution of Milky Way satellites in a ΛCDM Universe. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 402(3), 1995-2008.
  17. Allen, C. W. (2000). Allen's astrophysical quantities. A. N. Cox (Ed.). Springer Science & Business Media.
  18. Mayer, L., Kazantzidis, S., Mastropietro, C., & Wadsley, J. (2007). Early gas stripping as the origin of the darkest galaxies in the Universe. Nature, 445(7129), 738-740.

List of sources consistently using 'the Universe' in the abstract

  1. Saunders, W., Frenk, C., Rowan-Robinson, M., Efstathiou, G., Lawrence, A., Kaiser, N., ... & Parry, I. (1991). The density field of the local universe.
  2. Kalanov, T. Z. (2003, April). For the problem of knowledge of the Universe. In APS April Meeting Abstracts (Vol. 1, p. 1016).

    Interesting, and possibly annoying -- this abstract also capitalizes "Nature" and, indeed, uses the expression "the Nature". Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

  3. Springel, V., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. (2006). The large-scale structure of the Universe. Nature, 440(7088), 1137-1144.
  4. Mashchenko, S., Couchman, H. M. P., & Wadsley, J. (2006). The removal of cusps from galaxy centres by stellar feedback in the early Universe. Nature, 442(7102), 539-542.
  5. Cimatti, A., Daddi, E., Renzini, A., Cassata, P., Vanzella, E., Pozzetti, L., ... & Zamorani, G. (2004). Old galaxies in the young Universe. Nature, 430(6996), 184-187.
  6. Borgani, S., & Guzzo, L. (2001). X-ray clusters of galaxies as tracers of structure in the universe. Nature, 409(6816), 39-45.
  7. Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., Neri, R., Cox, P., Cooper, M. C., Shapiro, K., ... & Weiner, B. (2010). High molecular gas fractions in normal massive star-forming galaxies in the young Universe. Nature, 463(7282), 781-784.
  8. Crawford, M., & Schramm, D. N. (1982). Spontaneous generation of density perturbations in the early universe.
  9. Abel, T., Bryan, G. L., & Norman, M. L. (2002). The formation of the first star in the universe. science, 295(5552), 93-98.
  10. Strigari, L. E., Bullock, J. S., Kaplinghat, M., Simon, J. D., Geha, M., Willman, B., & Walker, M. G. (2008). A common mass scale for satellite galaxies of the Milky Way. Nature, 454(7208), 1096-1097.
  11. Christlieb, N., Bessell, M. S., Beers, T. C., Gustafsson, B., Korn, A., Barklem, P. S., ... & Rossi, S. (2002). A stellar relic from the early Milky Way. Nature, 419(6910), 904-906.
  12. Carollo, D., Beers, T. C., Lee, Y. S., Chiba, M., Norris, J. E., Wilhelm, R., ... & York, D. G. (2007). Two stellar components in the halo of the Milky Way. Nature, 450(7172), 1020-1025.
  13. Alcock, C., Allsman, R. A., Alves, D. R., Axelrod, T. S., Becker, A. C., Bennett, D. P., ... & Welch, D. (2001). Direct detection of a microlens in the Milky Way. Nature, 414(6864), 617-619.
  14. Prada, F., Klypin, A., Flix, J., Martinez, M., & Simonneau, E. (2004). Dark Matter annihilation in the Milky Way Galaxy: Effects of baryonic compression. Physical review letters, 93(24), 241301.
  15. Diemand, J., Moore, B., & Stadel, J. (2005). Earth-mass dark-matter haloes as the first structures in the early Universe. Nature, 433(7024), 389-391.

List of sources sometimes using 'the Universe' and sometimes 'the universe'

  1. de Bernardis, P., Ade, P. A. R., Bock, J. J., Bond, J. R., Borrill, J., Boscaleri, A., ... & Vittorio, N. (2000). A flat Universe from high-resolution maps of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Nature, 404(6781), 955-959.
  2. Abel, T., Bryan, G. L., & Norman, M. L. (2002). The formation of the first star in the universe. science, 295(5552), 93-98.
  3. NASA: The Shape of the Universe however NASA bounces around with Universe/universe.
  4. Cimatti, A., Daddi, E., Renzini, A., Cassata, P., Vanzella, E., Pozzetti, L., ... & Zamorani, G. (2004). Old galaxies in the young Universe. Nature, 430(6996), 184-187.

Style guides that require capitalization, implicitly or explicitly

  1. The International Astronomical Union tells us to capitalize the initial letters of the names of all individual astronomical objects. They don't tell us every single object but the use Sun Moon, and Solar System are mentioned, and Universe is capitalized in the IAU symposium by Zeldovich mentioned above.
  2. Astronomy & Space Magazine Style guide Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources making a clear distinction between 'the Universe' and 'a universe'

  1. Universe Or universe? It All Depends On The Multiverse. Authored by Marcelo Gleiser, the Appleton Professor of Natural Philosophy and a professor of physics and astronomy at Dartmouth College where he penned multiple books including: The Prophet and the Astronomer (Norton & Company, 2003); The Dancing Universe: From Creation Myths to the Big Bang (Dartmouth, 2005); A Tear at the Edge of Creation (Free Press, 2010); and The Island of Knowledge (Basic Books, 2014). He is a General Councilor of the American Physical Society and a recipient of the Presidential Faculty Fellows Award from the White House and the National Science Foundation.

    # Siepmann, J. P. (2000). The laws of space and observation: A Unified theory. Journal of Theoretics, 2(2). "*The capitalization of the words “Space” and “Universe” has been done intentionally in order to differentiate these specific and unique entities from their generalized common noun usage. The term “Space” as being used here is a proper noun defining a specific physical entity, and “Universe” as being used here is a proper noun defining our specific universe."

    This then, would be a case of capitalisation for emphasis, which is specifically opposed by the MOS and quite a different proposition to what is being discussed here. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC) 00:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

    * Siepmann’s precise words are “Universe” as being used here is a proper noun defining our specific universe. I infer from this that the capitalisation is used to distinguish a proper noun (Universe, the name of our universe) from other uses. I see no other rational interpretation of those words. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

    ** James P.Siepmann is both the author and editor of the quoted 'Journal'. The quoted article has three references, each by James P.Siepmann. Others may wish to comment on whether this is, by WP standards, a reliable source? The article uses the word 'universe' ten times, of which, it is capitalised once in the main body of the text and twice in a footnote explaining why it was capitalised: "The capitalization of the words “Space” and “Universe” has been done intentionally in order to differentiate these specific and unique entities from their generalized common noun usage. The term “Space” as being used here is a proper noun defining a specific physical entity, and “Universe” as being used here is a proper noun defining our specific universe." While the author may claim that the words are proper nouns, the rationale sounds very much to be one of emphasis. Cinderella157 (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

    *** I see what you mean. I agree it's a dodgy source and have struck it out for that reason. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

  2. Stoehr, F., White, S. D., Tormen, G., & Springel, V. (2002). The satellite population of the Milky Way in a ΛCDM universe. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 335(4), L84-L88.
  3. Stoehr, F., White, S. D., Springel, V., Tormen, G., & Yoshida, N. (2003). Dark matter annihilation in the halo of the Milky Way. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 345(4), 1313-1322.
  4. Li, Y. S., & White, S. D. (2008). Masses for the local group and the Milky Way. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 384(4), 1459-1468.

Discussion of sources using 'the Universe', consistently or otherwise

DV, the first one, by de Bernardis et al, has a completely chaotic mix of caps; I think citing it for anything is a big mistake, don't you? The second, by Perlmutter et al., uses lowercase throughout, so why is it here? So you have one example. Dicklyon (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
@Dicklyon Thanks for the tip. You're quite right about Perlmutter - now struck through. Re Bernardis, it does show u/c is used, albeit inconsistently. I'm sure a more systematic search will reveal plenty of other examples. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Note that the link to de Bernardis et al. is for a prepublication draft. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Fyunck, if you are going to cite the IAU and its spelling conventions, then I think it is only fair that it be made clear in your statement that the manual is actually silent on the issue of "Universe". Accepting that the IAU is, as they declare on this site, "the arbiter of planetary and satellite nomenclature", the IAU may not have actually resolved to call our universe "the Universe" -- I doubt that they would take up such a measure. Furthermore, I assume by "NASA bounces around" that you mean that there are some NASA publications that are at variance from their own style guide. If you want to say that "NASA bounces around", I think you need to be clear about what you mean, otherwise readers will go to the NASA manual, see that it recommends against "Universe", and wonder why you even mention NASA, since their official manual contradicts the style you apparently advocate. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Which is how I worded it in the IAU citation. I worded the "bounces around" for NASA to be fair. I could have just said nothing and let the source speak for itself but I thought it better to let people know that NASA is not consistent. Basically NASA does not practice what it preaches, but I certainly could have written it better. I am quite upset that someone has chosen to place my links in the wrong section, a discussion area! It is NOT where it was originally placed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Fyunck(click), that's entirely my fault. I moved things around to distinguish better between the different users and usages of capitalisation. Would you like me to put them back (I'm not sure which one belongs in which list) or do you prefer to do this yourself? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and assigned them each to one of the lists - hope I got the gist right. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "the universe" by news articles of the journal Nature

Out of the first 9 hits for "the universe" at www.nature.com, 7 use upper case throughout and 2 use mixed case

  1. Ball 2001, New model of expanding Universe consistently upper case
  2. Peplow 2004, Sizing up the Universe mostly lower case, some upper case
  3. Whitfield 2001, Cosmos to freeze-frame consistently upper case
  4. Whitfield 2003, Accelerating Universe theory dispels dark energy consistently upper case
  5. Ball 2002, No time like the present consistently upper case
  6. Peplow 2004, Cosmic doomsday delayed consistently upper case
  7. McAlpine 2011, Testing the expanding Universe consistently upper case
  8. Ball 2006, Cyclic universe could explain cosmic balancing act mixed case
  9. Whitfield 2002, Neutrino weighed up consistently upper case

Capitalisation of "the universe" in MNRAS abstracts

Out of the first 16 hits for "the universe" in MNRAS abstracts, 12 use upper case throughout, 1 uses lower case throughout, 2 distinguish between the Universe and a universe and 1 uses mixed case

  1. Sethi 2005, H i signal from re-ionization epoch consistently upper case
  2. Furlanetto 2005, Taxing the rich: recombinations and bubble growth during reionization consistently upper case
  3. Baldi 2010, Time-dependent couplings in the dark sector: from background evolution to non-linear structure formation consistently upper case
  4. Lacki 2010, The end of the rainbow: what can we say about the extragalactic sub-megahertz radio sky? consistently upper case
  5. Yang 2010, The age problem in the ΛCDM model consistently upper case
  6. Koskela 2011, Least-action perihelion precession consistently upper case
  7. Kim 2005, Brans–Dicke theory as a unified model for dark matter–dark energy consistently upper case
  8. Barrow 2003, The Copernican principle in compact space–times mixed case
  9. Movahed 2008, Observational constraints on the braneworld model with brane–bulk energy exchange consistently upper case
  10. Sethi 2004, Primordial magnetic fields in the post-recombination era and early reionization consistently upper case
  11. Sawicki 2012, Stars, dust, and the growth of ultraviolet-selected sub-L* galaxies at redshift z∼ 2 consistently upper case
  12. Ghodsi 2011, Sudden Future Singularity models as an alternative to dark energy? consistently lower case
  13. Rebouças 2006, Cosmological parameters and cosmic topology the Universe, a universe
  14. Benitez-Herrera 2011, Model-independent reconstruction of the expansion history of the Universe from Type Ia supernovae consistently upper case
  15. Vardanyan 2009, How flat can you get? A model comparison perspective on the curvature of the Universe consistently upper case
  16. Miranda 2002, The formation of voids in a universe with cold dark matter and a cosmological constant the Universe, a universe
Note that the typsetter's guide for this paper (which I've quoted above requires our Universe to be capitalised, but other universes to be uncapitalised. Also, the journal website is now [3]; the one quoted above is years out of date. Modest Genius talk 13:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "the universe" in ApJ abstracts

The Astrophysical Journal appears to use "universe" (lower-case) consistently, based on an ADS search for "universe" in abstract or keywords, restricted to the journal ApJ. A similar search restricted to MNRAS finds "Universe" consistently used when it's a proper noun, as found above. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 02:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

What examples show and don't show

Dondervogel and Fyunck, I'm not understanding what listing specific, and, seemingly, isolated, examples of particular publications using "Universe" is supposed to be showing us. I think we all agree that these can be found. Indeed, Dicklyon put together a compilation of all books listed under google that use the the "Universe" convention and the "universe" convention: n-gram stats. So, yes, examples can be found. But a list of them is not interesting for the discussion, especially when the overall numbers are so much in favor of "universe". Perhaps you can try to count, say, the number of occurrences of "Universe" (outside of the first word in a sentence), versus "universe" in a journal, like, maybe Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (where many of your examples are found)? Then, you might consider putting together a similar statistic for another authoritative journal, so that your results don't appear biased. It is possibly more interesting is that you actually found a style manual that recommends for "Universe". For objectivity, you might consider adding to both lists of style manuals, those recommending "Universe" and those recommending "universe". In science, it is good to avoid "cherry picking". Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Isambard Kingdom The case for capitalization is entirely about consistency, so sources are of little relevance. For this reason I requested the heading be altered to "Evidence and arguments supporting capitalization ..." but this request was not accepted. It seems that others consider following sources important without regard for internal consistency. The list is primarily intended for the benefit of those editors, which I suspect does not include you. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Consistency with MOS:CAPS and the rest of WP would favor lowercase for universe and solar system. You're pushing in an odd direction here. Dicklyon (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
In what sense is it odd to favour consistency? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
In the sense that favoring consistency of universe with solar system, which seems to be your point, is pushing us further from consistency with the rest of WP style. You spoke above about "harmonisation of style", which is a good idea, but you're pushing away from it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Now I'm completely lost. Where is the inconsistency in seeking either Earth, Sun and Universe (consistently caps) or earth, sun and universe (consistently not)? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
He's lost me too. MOSCAPS would seem to lean towards lowercase earth, sun, moon, solar system, galaxy and universe. But picking and choosing which one to capitalize is a big problem for some and not harmonious at all. Wikipedia is also about consistency. It almost appears that your plan is if you attack things one at a time it will give you better leverage in each seceding case. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The argument for consistency being proposed is that all terms for 'celestial bodies' should be capitalised (in the context of the statement). This ignores that there are different reasons why each should or should not be capitalised. For example, to assert that 'the Galaxy' might be a proper name when it refers to 'our galaxy is patently wrong since the proper name of our galaxy is the Milky Way. An argument for 'Solar System' ignores that solar systems are not given specific (proper) names but are referred to by their stars. It ignores that there are very strong reasons to consider Earth (the plant) a proper names, based on both the conventions of language and the evidence of usage. In the statement, "Earth is the third rock from the Sun", the definite article ('the') is not required for 'earth' to have a specific referent. 'Earth' is being used in a way that is characteristic of proper names. The case for considering 'sun' and 'moon' to be proper nouns (or requiring capitalisation) is neither as clear nor as strong as for 'earth' but certainly stronger than for the other cases suggested by Fyunck(click). Each case should be assessed by consistent rationale based on the conventions of language and the evidence of usage. The argument of consistency being forwarded here is based on the assumption that, because they are all terms that describe 'celestial bodies', they are the same in some essential way that dictates the decision to capitalise (or not). Such an assertion lacks any substantial strength. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, style guides and scientific papers, and dictionaries are all over the map on this issue. Just a glance at the sourcing can tell us that. It's a mess both inside and outside of wikipedia. None of the other choices have substantial strength when the sources used don't either. I find it far better for all of the above or none of the above, but maybe I'll be the only one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Side point: Galaxy is always capitalized when used to refer to the Galaxy (also known as the Milky Way) in astronomical literature, textbooks, and most anywhere else with understanding of the meaning (and always treated as a common noun when referring to other galaxies). In popular works and the press, I think that understanding of the distinction between the Galaxy and other galaxies is less well understood (and Milky Way is more commonly used to refer to our Galaxy anyway), but I think that's more an example of ignorance than a different style. For "U/universe", the astronomical literature is not consistent. And "the" doesn't always imply a specific noun: "The galaxy M31 is the nearest large spiral to the Galaxy" or "The Galaxy has many smaller satellite galaxies" are perfectly valid constructions commonly used in the professional astronomy literature.
To me, capitalizing "the Universe" would be consistent with "the Galaxy". However, the usage is not universal in the case of the Universe. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The premise about Galaxy is false. One finds books with things like "an introduction to the Milky Way galaxy, describing the different types of bodies found there, the movements found within it, and the position of the solar system in the galaxy." and "If Earth is the only inhabited planet in the galaxy, then the galaxy belongs to all of us." and "The Dark Rift is a feature flowing through the Milky Way galaxy. Clearly visible on a dark night, the rift divides the light-filled part of the galaxy in two." and "the Milky Way stretching across the night sky is a broadside view of the galaxy in which we live." Four out of the first 10 using lowercase; similar number using upper case Galaxy. Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Above, Cinderella stated "to assert that 'the Galaxy' might be a proper name when it refers to 'our' galaxy is patently wrong since the proper name of our galaxy is the Milky Way."... I would quibble with that... while "Milky Way" (or "Milky Way Galaxy") is a proper name (and perhaps even the Official name) for our galaxy, it isn't the only proper name for our galaxy... "The Galaxy" is another proper name for it. Things can have more than one proper name (example: Moon and Luna, Earth and Terra) Blueboar (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I acknowledge the possibility that 'the Galaxy' is a metonymy with the status of a proper name (such as 'the City', for the City of London) but is this specifically acknowledged and widely accepted or is it an hypothesis made to justify the observation? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Evidence supporting lower case when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body (and in general)

All known sources

This list was written at a late point and tries to take note of all valid sources mentioned during discussions. In the following, "universe only" means the source only supports universe (lower case), "Universe mostly" means the source supports Universe (upper case) most of the time or as a preference, and so on. The classes are in order by suggested weight: dictionaries, encyclopedias, style guides, style sheets ("style sheet" is a short document about style that is explicitly directed at a local group or in-house), terms' popularity in books, and statements about the Universe/universe distinction made by notable people i.e. people whose names are in Wikipedia.

DICTIONARIES universe only: short Oxford universe only: Merriam-Webster universe only: Penguin / Cambridge / McGraw-Hill dictionaries of astronomy. both universe and Universe: Wiktionary. universe mostly: large Oxford i.e. The Oxford English Dictionary entry (not online) has universe as the main entry but says for meaning 2a: "Freq. with capital initial".

ENCYCLOPEDIAS universe only: Encyclopedia Britannica. universe only; World Book Encyclopedia (not online)

STYLE GUIDES universe only: Handbook for Writers by Celia Millward and Jane Flick (not online) says "Do not capitalize the words world, sun, moon, universe, or star." universe only: Manual of Scientific Style, by Harold Rabinowitz and Suzanne Vogel, p. 355 says "Generic terms and general descriptive terms, including celestial, atmospheric, and meteorological phenomena, should be lowercased ... universe" Universe mostly: The Times Online Style Guide (i.e. London Times) says says "Universe cap in planetary context, as Sun, Earth, Moon etc, but l/c in phrases such as “she became the centre of his universe”. See Earth, solar system"

STYLE SHEETS universe only: IOP Institute of Physics Style Guide says "Use an upper case initial for Sun, Moon, and Earth in an astronomical context when referring to our own galaxy, but use a lower case initial for universe, galaxy, solar system, etc." universe only: Style Guide for NASA History Authors and Editors says "Capitalize the names of planets (e.g. Earth, Mars, Jupiter). Capitalize moon when referring to Earth's Moon, otherwise lowercase moon (e.g. the Moon orbits the Earth, Jupiter's moons). Do not capitalize solar system and universe.| universe only: CERN writing guidelines says "If in doubt, choose lower case [new paragraph] Exceptions include: our Sun, Earth (the planet), and our Solar System, but not universe, moon, earthquake, earth (the soil)." universe only: Illinois State University says "Except earth (when it refers to soil), world, sun, moon, galaxy, and universe, capitalize the names of all other specific heavenly bodies" Universe mostly: MNRAS (Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society) publication titled "MNR Copyediting Style Sheet" (not online) says "Universe (our) but general/model universe" Universe always: European Southern Observatory: ESO (European Southern Observatory) Style Guide says "I have chosen only to use the upper case for astronomical terms that are themselves proper nouns. Specific examples are given below: ... the Universe Universe always: Astronomy & Space Magazine House Style says "Capitalise ... the Universe" Universe always: Journal of The Royal Astronomical Society of Canada Style Guide for Authors says: use "Universe" and "Solar System". Universe always: Analog magazine. This information is second-hand, see later section for quote by Robert J. Sawyer

PUBLISHED BOOKS universe mostly: n-grams Google n-grams can show the relative popularity of universe and Universe according to books that Google has available. Searches for comparative pairs of phrases which have specifically astronomical contexts, such as "the observable universe,the observable Universe", "the universe is expanding,the Universe is expanding", "an Einsteinian universe,an Einsteinian universe" ... return graphs indicating universe is used between 5 and 10 times as often as Universe. An example is here.

STATEMENTS BY NOTABLE PEOPLE Edward Robert Harrison, astronomer, in New Scientist Magazine: "Many authors, including myself, refer to our planet as Earth with capital E ... On the other hand, some authors, including myself, are reluctant to see Universe substituted for the serviceable word universe. ... the Atlantic Ocean divides authors (and editors) into two groups: those in the New World who continue to use the modest word universe, and those in the Old World who have who have changed over to the pleasant Universe." Larry Trask, linguist, in a style sheet: "The equator runs through the middle of Brazil. Admiral Peary was the first person to fly over the north pole. The universe is thought to be about 15 billion years old. Here the words equator, north pole and universe need no capitals, because they aren't strictly proper names. Some people choose to capitalize them anyway; this is not wrong, but it's not recommended." Marcelo Gleiser, astronomer, in a blog: "The most common position and, in my opinion, the worst, is to simply adopt "universe" indiscriminately." Sandra Faber, astronomer, in a conference report: "There is a convention in astronomy (not strictly observed but still useful) that capitalizes the name of an object when it refers to our local example, as distinct from an object in the larger ensemble. Thus, “earth” becomes “Earth,” “sun becomes “Sun,” and “galaxy” becomes the “Galaxy.” In keeping with this tradition, I suggest that anthropic cosmologists might capitalize the word “Universe” when referring to our own, to express explicitly our willingness to contemplate the existence of the larger ensemble" Robert_J._Sawyer, science fiction author, in a blog: "But note that Analog magazine (and analogy!) can take this to ridiculous lengths: Analog's style guide is to capitalize: Earth, Moon, Sun, Galaxy (when referring to our own), and even Universe. Actually, one could argue that there are no other proven universes, and so capitulate to Analog's arcane point about capitalizing it ..."

UNACCEPTED SOURCES These publications were put forward as sources but they merely mention "universe" or "Universe" without prescribing, or say nothing at all. Colorado State University Writers Style Guide Guide to the English editing at Astronomy & Astrophysics (International Astronomical Union) Naming Astronomical Objects

IMPLICATIONS Sources which say "universe only", "universe mostly", or "both universe and Universe" are all support for choice 2 (MOSCAP says to use lower case where there is inconsistency). However, where a text indicates "Universe mostly", it is always explained as meaning that the idea is to use Universe in certain contexts, which will be interpreted as support for choice 1 even though the wording is not obviously similar to the context described for choice 1 ("specific celestial object").

So we have: Supporting choice 2: 5 dictionaries, 2 encyclopedias, 2 style guides, 4 style sheets, the majority of printed books. Supporting neither choice 1 nor choice 2 i.e. "Universe always": 4 style sheets. Supporting choice 1: 1 style guide, 1 style sheet.


Re proper names and appropriate analogies

  • The 'universe' is a common name (noun) with the definite article, 'the', to indicate a specific referent. It is not a proper name. A case based the assertion that the 'universe' is a proper name because it has a specific referent has no strength. Such an arguement is self-defeating. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • An argument that capitalisation is needed to distinguish between our universe and other universes is an argument to use capitals for emphasis and is contrary to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Do not use for emphasis. Such an argument has no strength. If capitalisation must be relied upon to make the distinction, the the name is not a proper name. Such an argument is self defeating. 'Jupiter' is a proper name, not because it is capitalised. 'Jupiter' is capitalised because it is a proper name. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • An argument for capitalisation by analogy with earth, sun, moon and solar system, presumes that these are each capitalised for the same reasons (presumably because they are proper nouns) and that the assertion is correct in each case. These presumptions cannot be assumed to be correct. 'Solar system' was included in this list without a consensus having been established. It is closest to an analogy with 'universe' and it has the least reliable grounds for inclusion in the list. The case for stating 'Earth' is a proper name is different from and much stronger than for the other examples. A case based on 'analogy' lacks strength. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • An argument of consistency is similar to an argument by analogy but does not presume that there is a correct reason to be consistent - it is better to look the same (though this might be incorrect) than it is to not look the same, even if this occurs for the correct reason. Such an argument lacks strength.Cinderella157 (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
    Just so I'm clear, is this really evidence or POV commenting best used in the discussion section? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The following official style manuals explicitly recommend against capitalizing "universe":

The Cern Guide is interesting. You are correct it says use lower case for universe. But it says nothing of the Sun or Solar System and tells us to always use lower case for moon. We will be quite inconsistent if we follow it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Unless we follow it consistently, also for moon, earth, sun, etc Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
This is true, we could do that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Handbook for Writers by Celia Millward (my paper copy) says, "Do not capitalize the words world, sun, moon, universe, or star. Capitalize the names of planets, but do not capitalize the word earth unless it is being used as the name of a planet in contrast with other planets in the solar system." (notice lowercase solar system in example). None of my other books that discuss earth, moon, sun, galaxy, etc., give any hint that there would be a question about universe. Dicklyon (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The following official style manuals explicitly recommend against capitalizing "solar system":

The following dictionaries do not capitalizing "universe":

It should be pointed out that TOD also uses lower case for solar system where we use upper case, and TOD capitalizes Galaxy where we use lower case. It is inconsistent in it's application and shows why we need to talk about these items all at once instead of one at a time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, this is from the expurgated online version. I don't have a copy so I asked at the OED website about it. A book owner replied: The OED lists five uses of the word universe, one of them (the original) is obsolete. The astronomical meaning is subdivided into
2a in effect the actual observable cosmos
2b in effect any conceivable cosmos
for meaning 2a they comment Freq. with capital initial
I did not look this up personally but per his comment the OED does allow capitalizing of Universe. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any style guide (including Wikipedia) that uses a lowercase g for the Galaxy when referring to the Milky Way, and I'm not aware of any source that uses a capital G when referring to other galaxies. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Just check out our own Galaxy article. Even when referring to our own Galaxy it is not capitalized. The article even uses "Milky Way galaxy" in places. Our style guide is mute on the subject, as it is with universe. Are you sure about the Chicago Style Guide? I think it is pretty clear there that galaxy is never capitalized. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Unawareness can sometimes be fixed by looking. This search find the National Geographic Style Manual recommending "the Milky Way galaxy". This one finds that specialists are different "It is interesting to note that astronomers capitalize the "G" in galaxy when talking about our Milky Way!" Or try a book search. This one uses "Milky Way galaxy" but notes that Galaxy capitalized means the Milky Way. You'll find lots of other variations, too, like this one that does not capitalize galaxy referring to ours but does capitalize in the full name "Milky Way Galaxy". There are other guides that say this more generically, like this one: "names of other unique celestial objects should be capitalized. Generic words forming part of the name are not capitalized" (Crab nebula, Halley's comet). Dicklyon (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, not one of the examples provided there contradicts my point, which I think indicates a misunderstanding and that I didn't say it clearly enough. "The Galaxy" is nearly always capitalized (and always, as far as I know, in the professional literature) when referring to the Milky Way. "Milky Way Galaxy" and "Milky Way galaxy" are both fairly common constructions, and should follow the same style as "Andromeda G/galaxy" and "North S/star" used in the particular style guide. The Inglis book you mentioned (from a skim) never uses "the galaxy" to refer to the Milky Way after that footnote except in a common noun sense (using "the Milky Way" where "the Galaxy" might also be used), a perfectly valid choice that remains consistent with capitalizing "the Galaxy" when it's used as a proper noun. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 03:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
If you look in books, "the Galaxy" is always less common than "the galaxy" in all contexts except for "to the Galaxy", which is due to the widespread citation of the title-case "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". I'd bet that most of these lowercase ones still refer to the Milky Way. Dicklyon (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Because the statistics don't provide context to tell whether "the galaxy" is used to refer to the MilkybWay, that's not evidence, it's an assertion. It's plausible (I would assert likely, but that's not evidence either) that a majority of popular works would avoid the not-obvious-to-someone-not-aware-of-it convention in favor of "the Milky Way" for clarity (as Wikipedia articles in fact often do). But I'm happy to table this discussion unless and until someone proposes changing the WP style guide for usage of "the Galaxy" as a proper noun. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 04:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe I asserted only what the evidence shows, and the "I bet" part was just a personal conjecture. One could click through and sample some books and get a better idea. Dicklyon (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization in reliable sources

Below is a list of how universe is capitalized in the first ten books of a search for "universe" in Google Books. It is limited to books that use the word in a scientific context (though some are debatable) and to those which are available for preview. It changed my mind from sometimes upper case to always lower case. MOS:CAPS, right at the top says "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia."

  1. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter ... (2007) by Karen Barad link, almost completely avoids the use of universe in prose, lower case when used.
  2. A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather … (2012) by Lawrence M. Krauss link, consistent lower case.
  3. Universe: The Solar System (2011) by Roger Freedman, Robert Geller, William J. Kaufmann link, consistent lower case when not referring to its own title.
  4. The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science And Spirituality (2005) by Dalai Lama XIV Bstan-ʼdzin-rgya-mtsho link, almost never uses the word in prose, lower case in the one place I found.
  5. A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics From the Bottom Down (2005) by Robert B. Laughlin link, consistent lower case.
  6. The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? (2006) by Leon M. Lederman link, consistent lower case.
  7. Universe (1921) by Scudder Klyce and John Dewey (1921) link, mixed use in introductory material, consistently lower case in main text.
  8. A Universe of Consciousness: How Matter Becomes Imagination (2000) by Gerald Edelman and Giulio Tononi link, not in an astronomical context - never uses the word universe in the preview I can see.
  9. The Universe: Leading Scientists Explore the Origin, Mysteries, and Future ... (2014) edited by John Brockman link, consistent lower case.
  10. Time Travel in Einstein's Universe: The Physical Possibilities of Travel ... (2001) by J. Richard Gott link consistent lower case.

Over the next day or so I plan to add to the list above, but here's the first 10. Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 16:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Below is a list of how universe is capitalized in the first ten results of a search for "universe" in Google Scholar. In this sample, 9/10 were lower case.

  1. Kolb, E. W., Turner, M. S. "The early universe" Front. Phys., 1990 link, lower case
  2. Alan H. Guth "Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems" Physical Review D, 1981 link, lower case
  3. Adam G. Riess et al. "Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant" The Astronomical Journal, 1998 link, lower case
  4. A.D. Linde "A new inflationary universe scenario: A possible solution of the horizon, flatness, homogeneity, isotropy and primordial monopole problems" Physics Letters B, 1982 link, lower case
  5. V.A. Kuzmin, V.A. Rubakov, M.E. Shaposhnikov "On anomalous electroweak baryon-number non-conservation in the early universe" Physics Letters B, 1985 link, lower case
  6. S.W. Hawking "The development of irregularities in a single bubble inflationary universe" Physics Letters B, 1982 link, lower case
  7. Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design, 1986 link, lower case
  8. Phillip James Edwin Peebles The Large-scale Structure of the Universe, 1980 link, lower case
  9. Stuart Kauffman At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity, 1995 link, lower case
  10. P. de Bernardis et al. "A flat Universe from high-resolution maps of the cosmic microwave background radiation" Nature, 2000 link, upper case

I'll keep working on similar lists from Google News and regular Google search to see what we get. SchreiberBike talk 05:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Below is a list of how universe is capitalized in the first ten results of a search for "universe" in Google News where the word is used in a scientific context. In this sample, 10/10 were lower case.

  1. Calla Cofield "Mystery of the Universe's Gamma-Ray Glow Solved" Space.com, February 5, 2015 link, lower case
  2. Ben Gilliland "An Evolving Guide to the (Unfinished) Universe (Op-Ed)" Space.com, February 5, 2015 link, lower case
  3. Calla Cofield "Oldest Stars in the Universe Actually Younger Than Previously Thought" Space.com, February 5, 2015 link, lower case
  4. Kelly Dickerson "3 ways the universe might end" Business Insider, February 3, 2015 link, lower case
  5. Graham Templeton "3,200 megapixel camera will make interactive 3D map of the universe" Geek.com, February 2, 2015 link, lower case
  6. Emily Petroff "A faster response needed to see Fast Radio Bursts in the universe" The Conversation, February 5 2015 link, lower case
  7. Katherine Brooks "Microscopic Bacteria Eat Away At Cosmic Photographs, Unearthing An Entirely New Universe" The Huffington Post, February 4, 2015 link, lower case
  8. Jonathan O'Callaghan "Is dark matter lighter than we thought? New particle could explain why the universe's greatest mystery remains unsolved" Daily Mail, February 2, 2015 link, lower case
  9. Robbie Gonzalez "Is There Another Version Of You, Out There In A Parallel Universe?" io9, February 1, 2015 link, lower case, but has extensive quote which uses upper case
  10. Nikhilesh De "Speaker discusses the beginning of the universe" The Daily Targum, February 4, 2015 link, lower case

I'll do at least one more for a general Google search. If anyone has suggestions for other ways to try to find an unbiased sample of reliable sources, I'd be interested in your suggestions. SchreiberBike talk 06:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Below is a list of how universe is capitalized in the first ten results of a search for "universe" in Google Search, where the word is used in a scientific context. It excludes Wikipedia and universe as part of a proper name, such as The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. In this sample, 8/10 were lower case and the remaining two were mixed.

  1. "Universe - Latest News" NASA, link, lower case
  2. "Universe Today - Home" Universe Today, link, both upper and lower case
  3. Charles Q. Choi "Our Expanding Universe: Age, History & Other Facts" Space.com, January 13, 2015, link, lower case
  4. The Universe History, link, lower case
  5. Hayley Birch, Colin Stuart and Mun Keat Looi "The 20 big questions in science" The Guardian, August 31, 2013, link, lower case
  6. David Albert "On the Origin of Everything" The New York Times, March 23, 2012, link, lower case
  7. Journey to the Edge of the Universe YouTube, April 19, 2013, link, lower case
  8. "Universe" National Geographic, link, lower case
  9. "Windows to the Universe" National Earth Science Teachers Association, link, both upper and lower case
  10. George Dvorsky "Is It Time to Accept That We're Alone in the Universe?" io9, November 5, 2014, link, lower case

If anyone has suggestions of places to look to see how reliable sources capitalize the word, please let me know and I'll do the work. SchreiberBike talk 00:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Universe is capitalized in the first two textbooks I pulled off my shelf, both of which are widely-used.
  1. Sparke & Gallagher (2007). Galaxies in the Universe (2nd ed.). ISBN 1139462385. (junior level undergraduate astronomy major textbook) consistent upper case
  2. Zeilik & Gregory (1998). Introductory Astronomy & Astrophysics (4th ed.). ISBN 0030062284. (sophomore level undergraduate astronomy major textbook) consistent upper case (I pulled it off my shelf -- no preview available.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Use of evidence

This whole RFC is still asking the wrong question, predicated on two assumptions: that consistency is required (never been demonstrated), and that the prior discussion was too confusing (no, it was sidelined by editors pushing consistency). This RFC is still insisting that the narrow choice presented is the only way to proceed, and I think that is false.

What is useful is the considerable set of evidence that has been collected. What to do with it, I ask? More than just count: for or against capitalization. That way is narrow, biased, and would potentially subject the MOS to special case lists of terms. In the future, we can then expect other special cases to be submitted, discussed, etc, spending an enormous amount of time and effort on what is not necessary in the first place (if we just don't start out with a narrow editorial opinion on where this must go). In the first discussion, another editor mentioned that we should not just count up sources, but examine both their recommendations and their reasons for those recommendations. The MOS should not contain special cases, but should present a unified policy, providing examples to clarify usage. The MOS should not be subjected to continual considerations of minutiae that will tax the editing community forever. We must ask the big question: why? Why do others do what they do? What can they tell us? What usage is prominent? And in the light of answers to those questions, then finally we can create a real proposal for the MOS about alternatives that describe a policy, not a cherry-picking list!

Please notice that this is not an argument against consistency. The policy that the MOS can lay down may well result in a decision to employ one case only (probably lower case, from a preliminary look, but that is not assured yet). But the policy should not name specific names. What it can do is to list examples, and if it will help to clarify the policy, the name(s) we are discussing could be used as such. But the RFC itself can also establish what to do with universe, solar system, and any others in the short term, without instating language in the MOS itself. This smaller immediate problem can be resolved without a degenerative effect upon the MOS.

And so far, I have seen no evidence that this new "RFC" is producing anything simpler than the original discussion did. Evensteven (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that the MOS (particularly MOS:Caps) could be improved. At present, it is inaccurate and ambiguous in the general guidance it gives. It should give much better 'descriptive' guidance to resolve questions/issues in a generalist way. It should avoid being prescriptive (of specific instances) as much as possible. English is a language of rules and conventions but there are also exceptions to the rules and exceptions to the exceptions. I believe that a more generalist and descriptive approach to the MOS would likely forestall many issues such as this. However, I think that it would be overly optimistic, by the very nature of English, with exceptions to exceptions, that the listing of certain specific 'cases' could be totally avoided. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

There is one problem with it not being in MOS but instead left as a decision in an Rfc. This has been brought to my attention by others. That favors the very experienced editors because these things eventually get archived. New editors would have no idea this Rfc exists. And then what happens is someone decides to change MOS language with a small consensus and again they don't realize that consensus was already reached in an Rfc. They make changes not knowing about this Rfc and it's not like we can police every article. So there is a reason to make MOS as clear as possible but as it is a MOS for all wikipedia it must remain fairly generalized because there is no one size fits all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:HIDDEN might help a bit. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking much the same or even an end note. Can a comment be protected? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I've seen that, but at individual tennis articles it mostly just states "don't change, decided by consensus" and new editors quite often ignore it and erase it so they can make their changes. And HIDDEN won't show up for people using the visual editor. It certainly can't hurt to leave the full Rfc link using HIDDEN so it would at least deter some. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need to capitalize U/universe consistently?

I am starting a new thread, because this is more a meta-question than one directly related to the RFC above. Much of the discussion about the capitalization of universe/Universe (so far) has been based on the assumption that we want (or need) to capitalize the word with consistency... but is that really a valid assumption. I have to ask: WHY are we assuming that we need consistency? Or to put it another way, why not simply allow this word to be capitalized inconsistently? Does it really matter how it is capitalized? And if so, why does it matter? Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The answer is in the very first post in thread "Capitalization of universe". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not seeing it. Could you be more specific? Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Peter is referring to the post at the bottom of this page. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know... but what I see there is an argument that we need consistency... but not any explanation of why we need it. I understand that consistency is deemed important by a lot of the editors involved in this discussion, but what I don't understand is why consistency is so important to them. What is the harm of having universe be lower case in one article, and upper case in another article? Blueboar (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Having consistency one way or the other really helps when others proofread an article. It can start revert-wars where an administrator has no ability to settle it. And what about consistency within an article? It's one thing if one article capitalizes and another does not, but you'd have to agree that you can't have mixed capitals in a single article if the word is being used in the same context. Then you have editors making bots to clean up spelling errors. Someone could make one to de-captalize all instances of Universe that don't start a sentence. Could we leave the word off the list, sure we could, but I'm guessing that squabbles amongst articles are what started this ball rolling, and they'll come up again. One thing though. You make a good point on bringing this up. It's like, the outside world can't make up it's mind on this issue, why should wikipedia? Style guides don't agree on Every Single One of the terms earth, moon, sun, solar system, galaxy or universe. Places like NASA have a style guide that they themselves randomly follow. This is probably why we're having so much trouble figuring this one out. Sort of a garbage-in garbage-out syndrome. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I explained again at even greater length in the appropriate thread -- look above, starting with the words "Some editors have wondered". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought we'd already discussed this one to death but here's my additional two cents:

See what all these have in common? They relate to theological propositions of our Universe (and specifically to theories of "God" being our Universe (in the vein of Pantheism/Pandeism/Panentheism). And note, now, how the language proposition being made at the head of this whole thing is addressed to circumstances "when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body." So if that is the limitation, them Universe surely ought to be capitalized in God becomes the Universe because there it is referred to as a theological construct instead of an astronomical one; and perhaps the same as to Fine-tuned Universe, and any other reference to our Universe as a Creator's Creation as opposed to a place in space (even if all of it). DeistCosmos (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure about all this odd deity stuff...don't think it applies to an article about science. This lloks to be a hard one as outlined by this raw data. However... it should be a capital....Many people fail to realize that astronomical objects such as the Earth or Sun should have their first letter capitalized... both of the words are proper nouns, and proper nouns should be capitalized because they can be seen as either a place or a thing. -- Moxy (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Moxy, I'm just curious, did you read the content above, including evidence for and against capitalization? I ask because you comment "many people fail to realize" stands at variance to a number (though not all) style manuals. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I said this because the IAU (International Astronomical Union - which is the official authority on naming celestial things) states, "The use of capitals for the initial letters of words is much more common in English (and German) than in French," but they do recommend that astronomical objects should be capitalized in both languages. as outlined here. -- Moxy (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and you also said that "many people fail to realize", but okay, the issue for the IAU, which is silent on the issue, is whether or not the "universe" is an astronomical "object" per se, one needing a name. It is not as simple as you seem to depict. Of course, what is done in German is irrelevant since they capitalize all nouns. Please read what we've written. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
What those quotes indicate seems to be that authors who capitalize Universe need to explain why they do so. It's certainly not the usual pattern. Dicklyon (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
It is the norm for people who have an education in this field...forget all the god stuff sourced above...follow what the experts say - Dennis Danielson (2014). Paradise Lost and the Cosmological Revolution. Cambridge University Press. p. 12. ISBN 978-1-316-19453-9. -- Moxy (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Moxy, it is probably best not to go down the road "for people who have education". Please see the manuals of style listed above. Some of them, certainly, were written by people with education and in consultation with people with education. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good I will try to be less assertive in the future ...do you have anything to add to the debate as in sources?? -- Moxy (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I could repeat the many things I've already typed here (and recorded above). Right now I'm just trying to get an "education" on this subject. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
You should at the very least provide a link to what your talking about....us new people to the conversation see nothing of what your referring to...just questions....so yes I am providing links to you can read them. Can rebut your POV when it looks like you have none.-- Moxy (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Here are links to style manual lists. They show no clear consistency, though possibly most of them favor "universe": [4], [5]. Style manuals for "solar system" are relevant because people try to make an analogy. These are also divided, but generally favor "solar system": [6], and [7]. I hope that helps. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you...that is some great sources. I see why people are having a debate. I also see things like R L Trask (January 30, 2003). Mind the Gaffe: The Penguin Guide to Common Errors in English. Penguin Books Limited. pp. 98–. ISBN 978-0-14-194136-3....that make me wonder why the recommendation by the official body are not followed. That said in my vire if it a proper noun it should a cap. -- Moxy (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Which recommendation by which official body are you thinking should be followed? And, then, why? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I take it you cant see the sources above ..can you see this link? As to why ...like others recomadations its to have consitancy. Got to remember most books are edited by "Copy editors"...not by experts in the field at hand. Copy editors focus on trying to make the style of a book clean and consistent...they may no be aware of all the recomedations (sorry about all the typos..I have MS very hard to go back and fix the little things). --Moxy (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
@Moxy, I'm sorry, but this is going to be my last attempt. You are citing an IAU guide for *publications*. It is a recommendation, but, yes, it is an authoritative style guide (not the only one, still, yes, "authoritative"). But, and as I've mentioned, and as concerns so much of the preceding discussion (by me, but mostly others), the "consistency" that you are suggesting might be one thing, as concerns "objects", yes, yes, yes, but the thing we keep coming back to, see one of my original messages to you, is whether or not the "universe" is, actually, an "astronomical object" per se, one deserving of a "name". I don't know how to make it any more clear to you that this is not as obvious as you seem to consider it to be. And, indeed, that is why lots and lots and lots of other style manuals recommend not capitalizing it. So, there are two sides to the whole discussion. I don't have a strong opinion as to which is "right". I do, however, wonder where some editors obtained such strong opinions. I might also mention that I have spent some of my energy actually editing wikipages, Universe, for example, where these issues come up. Okay, that is all, good bye. Have fun. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The linked book suggests the opposite; the author states that he follows IAU style, largely because otherwise people might wonder why he capitalizes what he does. It's an OK style to follow, but is certainly not the norm, even in astronomy journals as I have shown with extensive evidence in past discussions. As for following what the experts say, I'd rather follow the generalists than the specialists; see WP:SSF. Dicklyon (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • STOP... we are wandering away from the question being discussed in this thread... this thread isn't about whether we should use "Universe" or "universe"... this thread is to discuss why we need to make that choice in the first place. I am still not understanding why people desire consistency in the first place. What's wrong with allowing the word to be capitalized in one article, and not capitalized in another. Blueboar (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, some people have different interpretations of the nature of this thread. Indeed, conversation is often nonlinear in its evolution. To some, the issue of whether or not we need to capitalize U/universe consistently comes down to whether or not there is a standard. Then, if there is a standard, it would be natural to follow it, consistently. I don't happen think there is a standard, but I acknowledge others might seek it. At the same time, I'm not sure it is right to simply tell people to "STOP". Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

To leave the choice open to individuals is not the same as doing nothing. Some would argue that to do nothing is to tacitly support capitalisation because of the alleged consensus reached during the 'discussion' reached at Talk:WP Project Astronomy. The post by Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC) (herein) indicates that unless the matter is resolved, the matter will not go away. Saying specifically that one way or the other is acceptable will not resolve the matter either. Editors will still be tempted to make changes and next thing the festering sore will erupt once more. In evidence, I note Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Periods (full stops) and spaces states: "The letters in an acronym are generally not separated by periods (full stops) or blank spaces (GNP, NORAD, OBE, GmbH). Periods and spaces that were traditionally required have now dropped out of usage (PhD is now preferred over Ph.D. and Ph. D.)." Despite this, an editor recently amended "Washington DC:" to "Washington D.C.:" in references of an article I am associated with. Even explicitly saying something is acceptable isn't going to stop the problem. I have seen edits of "US" to "U.S." even though this is specifically discussed as being optional. Unfortunately, I perceive that the only way to resolve this particular issue is to be specific and definitive. Another consideration is the opening statement of MOS:Caps to 'avoid unnecessary capitalisation'. Unless there is a compelling case for capitalisation, then this 'statement of policy' by the MOS (I am not saying this is a policy in the context of WP:policies) would be used to preclude the optional capitalisation of 'universe'. Unfortunately, I perceive what you(Blueboar) suggest is likely to an untenable proposition in practical terms. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The proposition itself does that, for it expresses itself as applying only to astronomical uses. Why would this have any bearing whatever on theological uses? DeistCosmos (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
A very good point DeistCosmos, something I was just about to address to you, even if you had not just made this comment ( 04:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)). Your earlier comments and examples are about a theological context of 'universe' and not the universe as a 'celestial body'. Writing about the Universe being synonymous with God in a theological context is quite different from writing about the universe in the context of physics or astronomy, even if the boundaries might get a little fuzzy on occasions. I would not believe that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Celestial bodies would relate to 'universe' in a theological context, even though some editors might not see the distinction. If there is any contention, the matter should be addressed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents. To that extent, I would suggest that the issue you raised earlier is irrelevant to this specific discussion (though perfectly valid in the right context) - they are closely related but distinctly different. I also note that a number of other references have been cited for supporting capitalisation of 'universe' where these appear to be in a similar context. As such, they are, perhaps not pertinent to the issue at hand. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Religion and the universe often converge in the discussion of cosmogonies. Indeed some religions find important parts of their origins in attempts to explain the existence of the universe. These ideas have evolved, of course, through old theories that we no longer accept, all the way to the present theory of the Big Bang. This continuum makes it hard to implement a composite rule of capitalization, in some cases it is not useful to try to make a tidy distinction between a "universe" that is simply "astronomical" and a "universe" that is more conceptual. Please see Universe. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 04:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I am bemused by this entire thread. You may as well ask "do we really need a MOS?" Well, hell no, Wikipedia would survive without it, but that's not the point. The existence of the MOS leads to greater harmonization across articles, which makes the articles easier to read. In other words, the MOS is not essential but it is desirable. Exactly the same argument applies to (uniform) capitalization of "universe". It is certainly true that harmonization within an article is more important across articles. At the moment we have neither. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand why we have an MOS... I suppose what I don't fully understand is why the MOS needs to get into this level of granularity. When a style guide starts to focus on the capitalization of specific words (as opposed to broad categories of words), I think we begin to get into instruction creep territory... with the (unintended) result that the guidance causes more disputes and arguments than it resolves. Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Peter Gulutzan has explained the need for the granularity, several times. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
No, he has stated that (in his opinion) there is a need for this level of granularity ... he has not explained why there is that need. The closest to an explanation I have seen is "some people are arguing about it and we need to make a rule to stop the arguments".
Before I can accept that as a reason to make a rule... What I want to know is "1) why are people having these arguments in the first place? (why does the capitalization matter?) .... 2) will making a rule about it actually stop those arguments?... and 3) if people are as divided on the issue as it appears they are, wouldn't making a rule (any rule) simply cause more arguments than it resolves (as people endlessly argue to change the rule)?" Blueboar (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
In my experience, most of what appears in WP:MOS is based on consensus. On that basis most editors are willing to follow it. Arguments arise either when MOS does not convey consensus (in which case discussions like this take place until it does) or because it provides no advice. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
If most editors would be willing to follow the lead of MOS:CAPS we wouldn't be having this conversation. But instead of avoiding unnecessary caps, so many specialists want to capitalize their own stuff (astronomers, animal breeders, historians, ...). Dicklyon (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't see anywhere in wp:caps that advises against capitalization of proper nouns. The way I see it, the debate we are having now is not about whether to follow CAPS it is about whether (or rather, when) Universe is a proper noun. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Right; but it does say to look to sources and consider something to be a proper name when it is consistently capitalized in sources (and only then, I believe is the intended implication). Since more than 80% of sources don't capitalize universe (when referring to our universe), it's pretty clear what the MOS expects of us. This is the way editors argue to capitalize their own stuff: they argue "proper name" even though sources don't support them, except for some insider or specialist guides sometimes; see WP:SSF. Dicklyon (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
But it's probably 75% of sources don't capitalize sun and moon either, yet I don't see you taking the same stand on that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
@Dicklyon Thank you for explaining your interpretation of WP:CAPS. I would agree that universe should be lower case (on the strength of wp:caps) if earth, moon and sun were. But the fact that Earth, Moon and Sun are considered "necessary" (in whatever sense of that word is intended) leads me to conclude that Universe is also necessary (in the same sense). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Whatever the rationale for Earth, Sun, and Moon (and it's not a rationale based on "necessary"), people have not generally thought that it applies to universe, and as you can see they still don't. The extension to "solar system" was snuck in there, and that's the bigger problem we should be addressing, as it has much less support in sources, and so far zero support in WP discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, so it's sort of an IDONTLIKEIT approach. You'll apply particular sources for one item but ignore them for others, as long as it supports your view of how things should be. I think that's very unfair, but I can't say it's unusual at wikpedia. I can live with whatever way this goes down but I wouldn't be surprised at more Rfc's on this same topic every so often, or perhaps the MOS guideline will simply get ignored. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
What are you accusing me of not liking? What sources do you think I'm ignoring? What am I doing that's unfair? I hear an accusation, but it's not specific enough that I can deal with it. I find that offensive. Dicklyon (talk) 08:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
If this RfC is resolved in favour of universe, I agree it would make sense to revisit Solar System. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I would say it makes sense to revisit "sun" and "moon" also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, those too. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

To answer some of the questions regarding the degree of specificity (or granularity) required in a style manual, one must consider the function of such a manual. A mos is a set of 'house rules' for a particular publishing body - be it a publishing house, a government body, university or some other body. An mos addresses:

  1. Matters of style where there are no generally accepted conventions.
  2. The 'house' chooses to deviate from an accepted convention.
  3. Matters where there are conventions but the conventions may not be universally held across the 'house' or there is some variation in interpretation. Frequently, these matters come down to fairly specific matters, such as capitalising specific words in specific contexts.

This degree of specificity is often necessary because it is often only at this level that a variability in individual perceptions becomes apparent. English is a language of convention but it is the exceptions to the exceptions that are often most problematic.

The WP:MOS (particularly on caps) has its own problems. At Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Anglo- and similar prefixes, it is observed: "There are variations by country ... In general terms, Americans are most favourable to capitalization and Canadians least favourable, with other countries falling somewhere in between." The MOS:Caps states: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization", but what does this mean? One could say that all capitalisation is unnecessary and, save that it is quite contrary to the convention of English, this would be correct but I don't think this is what the MOS means. Incidentally, a name is capitalised because it is a proper name. The converse is not true. A name does not become a proper name because it is capitalised. Does the opening sentence of the MOS:Caps actually mean the converse: "Wikipedia uses necessary capitalization"? What is necessary (or unnecessary) capitalisation?

The MOS:Caps states: "Most capitalization is for proper names or for acronyms." This is patently false. Capitalisation is applied to many words and phrases that are not proper names or even noun phrases. More correctly, capitalisation is generally applied to proper names and to words or phrases derived from proper names. The derived words or phrases can belong to any number of lexical categories (verb, noun, adjective, adverb etc or subset of these). Compounding this inaccuracy, the MOS:Caps evades defining a proper name in any construcive way. At this critical point, it fails to acknowledge that there different 'national' perspectives on what constitutes necessary (or unnecessary) capitalisation as well as variations in discipline or vocation etc. There is an unfounded assumption of consistent understanding.

Many people associate a specific 'referant' exclusively with proper names. They do not readily recognise (in more complex examples) that a specific referent is generated by use of the definite article. The concept of monoreferential appellatives, such as universe, is to some extent, counter intuitive and a confusing concept in itself - hence the discussion we are having now. [Appellative is the more correct converse of 'proper name', as common name is a term for non-scientific names of plants and animals.] These problems are exacerbated by use of 'the' as an intrinsic part of many proper names and the tendency not to capitalise it in such cases.

The MOS then states: "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." Interestingly, there is some conflict (as seen here) as to how sources should be used to resolve such issues. By a failure to be more explicit, either descriptively or specifically, MOS:Caps abdicates itself of many of the responsibilities of a style manual - and hence, we find ourselves in a position similar to this too frequently.

By better dealing with these matters, as I understand to be the point of view expressed by User:Evensteven, many issues could be more effectively resolved. I believe it is the CMOS (I don't have one and can't find the quote I am looking for) that has a similar position to MOS:Caps but I understand that this principle, and its application receives a much better explanation in CMOS. My recollection is that the example particularly refers to 'Halley's comet'. It asserts that, although 'Halley's comet' (both words) is the proper name, the capitalisation of comet is unnecessary. I am not necessarily saying this should be the case. What I am saying, is that CMOS makes a much better effort at making its intent clearer. Having said that though, there will still be issues that need to be dealt with at a more specific level. Perhaps by better defining specific instances, we will be in a better position to define descriptive ways of improving the MOS. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what I am referring to when I ask about "level of granularity"... I have no problem having a house style with relatively broad instruction on when to capitalize, and when not to... my question is whether we need to take that instruction to the level where we are narrowly instructing editors how to capitalize specific words? That is what seems like instruction creep to me. Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree. If anything, we should be rolling back the instruction creep that came in without even one word of discussion, where "solar system" was added to the list of things to capitalize. With that gone, there would be less reason to people to try to extrapolate to universe. Most guides (of the books I have and studied at least) are silent on universe because there's little reason to people to think the capitalize it; most sources don't and even most specialist guides that touch on it say not to. But we shouldn't need to cover every such thing, if we avoid pointing the consistencyists like Dondervogel there. Dicklyon (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
To respond to @Blueboar, a better written MOS in general and in descriptive terms should resolve many specific questions. A mos should avoid unnecessary 'granularity'. However, English is inherently a language of exceptions to exceptions. A mos will unavoidably need to address some issues at a fairly specific level. The need to do so is intrinsic to the nature of an mos (unless it defaults to another source). I would suggest that this particular issue isn't just going to go away and will keep returning, unless addressed in some definitive way. I agree with Dicklyon, that we are really having this discussion mainly because of the inclusion of 'solar system' as a Christmas special. This was; however, probably inevitable, given the position of the IAU, to over-capitalise. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, English is inherently a language of exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions... and if we try to account for each individual exception the MOS quickly grows unwieldy (that's what I mean by instruction creep).
All that is needed is a broad statement outlining the "norm", followed by another broad statement that exceptions to the norm will exist. By refraining from the temptation to address specific exceptions (but acknowledging that they will exist) we actually encourage discussion... but instead of becoming a contentious debate (with people arguing: "The MOS says X should be styled as Y" and others counter arguing: "Well, the MOS is wrong and should be changed") it becomes a constructive discussion (centered on answering the question: "Is X an exception to norm style Y)." I actually agree that we don't need to mention "solar system" either. The key to the section is to note that some terms are capitalized based on context... while giving an example helps we don't need (or want) a comprehensive list of every term that might qualify. I would use moon vs. Moon as the example... and leave it at that. Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Blueboar, I very much agree with the principle of making general statements and avoiding specifics as much as possible; however ... Consider how it is that we have arrived here. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Celestial bodies consists of two paragraphs - two separate ideas. The first deals with capitalisation of earth, sun and moon - words which are both appellatives and proper names. The second deals with compound names such as Halley's Comet, where there is a descriptor as part of the name. This invokes the IAS style guide. It applies to the second paragraph but not the first - they are separate ideas. It is reasonable to presume that the IAU style was (incorrectly) assumed to apply to both paragraphs and 'solar system' was added to the first paragraph on the strength of this incorrect assumption. Next thing, somebody assumes this also include 'universe' and we are here!

People are asserting that 'solar system', 'universe' and now, 'galaxy' are proper names when they refer to our specific version of each. These assertions are made on the basis that there is a specific referent. People are choosing to totally ignore that these are appellatives with a specific referent as a result of a definite article ('the') being used. It is common to capitalise for emphasis. Capitalising does not 'create' a proper name. Reference to sources, of itself does not disentangle the problem of identifying a proper name as opposed to capitalisation for emphasis (because it is our galaxy, it is important). Hence we see some capitalisation of 'universe'.

Then there is Halley's Comet, a proper name of two words that are inseparable as a name, yet many would ague it should be 'Halley's comet', based on the opening premiss of MOS:Caps. It is true that the 'understanding' is not degraded by this choice but is it correct in the context of the conventions of English?

I would be hopeful that people might discuss a matter on the basis of its merits - perhaps an optimistic view. People are too inclined to adhere to their views regardless of (or perhaps despite) their merits. "A discussion without becoming a contentious debate" - unfortunately, this too is optimistic. People on the wrong end of a logical discourse are all too quick to resort to 'abuse'. On the other-hand, it is difficult to remain composed in the face of the irrational.

And what happens when we resolve a matter of contention? Do we just walk away? Or should we record it for others to see? Should we hide it away in some archived discussion or mark it clearly for all that follow us to clearly note? I think that the latter is preferable. I do not mock you by saying that your ideals are perhaps Utopian or that it would be nice to live in a perfect world - it would. But I would also suggest that there are a number of realities that need to be accommodated - to wit, a degree of specificity cannot and should not be avoided. Though certainly, we should commence from a position of generalities and not from one of specifics alone (ad nausium).

Wile discussion might raise a level of consciousness in a relatively stable environment, this is certainly not WP. "The key to the section is to note that some terms are capitalized based on context... while giving an example helps". I would note that this is what was done originally and yet, because of creep, we now have to dispose of 'universe' and 'solar system'. Perhaps the original text should have said 'only'. Once we deal with the specifics then we can go back and refine things. This RfC deals with a specific, but it is a means to an end. Look at the discussion about drafting the RfC. Once the specifics have been dealt with, then perhaps we might be back at the original sentence and 'only' could be added. Cinderella157 (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

My, we have been busy! Over 240 edits in the 4 days I've been occupied elsewhere, by my count. And for all that, @Blueboar's excellent question in this thread is still not answered. Three letters sum it up: why? Why consistency? Why specificity? Why this level of granularity? Why MOS?

Well, we have some guidance from sources now, with a rather firm view that an uncapitalized universe is more standard generally. That seems to me to be the most reasonable basis for settlement of that issue: if we are to be consistent, we should be consistent with small case. But as has been pointed out so well, above in this section, what would we do to get the MOS in line? I have indeed recommended that the MOS should be general, which is my answer to Blueboar's query about granularity: namely that a listing of specific words and cases not only violates the normative practice of MOSes everywhere, but that the resulting clutter tends to undermine the usefulness and application of the MOS in particular. Those who pay attention to MOSes lose interest when they become nit-picky; those who don't may consider them to be so by definition. I cannot recommend that we go that route.

What about consensus? That and the WP MOS provide the policy by which editing is maintained. I have to agree that where to archive a consensus so that it is visible and accessible (as time goes on) to those who were not around at the time is an unsolved problem. To me, it seems that if we can find a good way to document a consensus, the technique might help over all of WP. I'm afraid that since WP:HIDDEN text is not visible in the visual editor, I can't recommend it as sufficient. (That's one reason I don't use the visual editor, though; it makes for a reputation of being tricksy.) Perhaps a list of consensuses can be created at each article that needs one, with each list element providing a link to the archive of the discussion. The list could be put in a maintenance section of the talk page, if no other better place can be found.

But such techniques will not solve the bigger problem brought up by Cinderella157. I have seen many arguments around WP that "consensuses can change". Sure they can, but this is most often touted by the people who are determined to bring about the consensus they want to see. When abused often enough, that attitude creates its own opposite among the editors who have "been there, done that": namely, that consensus cannot change. I can't say I don't have sympathy for both sides of that coin. Consensuses need to be firm, but not rock solid, malleable, but not mushy. And we just have to face up to the fact that people are sometimes going to be argumentative. I'd love to put a stop to trivial discussions, and to discussions about trivialities (those are not the same thing). But: as the number of people involved in anything grows, the need for communication grows geometrically. It's a daunting fact for WP, and I have yet to see anyone who likes it. As a practical matter, I would like to see a firm outcome here, plus a dependable record of evidence and decisions on the specific items ("universe", "solar system", "earth", "sun", "moon", did I forget any?), but no specific mention of any of them in the MOS.

And I would also like an answer to Blueboar's question: why consistency? I think it's extremely easy to see why some find it so desirable; I'm very far from opposed, and simply consider it neat and organized. But Blueboar has correctly insisted that it must be justified well here. English usage is not always consistent, as our sources here and other MOSes also make clear. Whatever the preponderance of usage, we still also have the practical problem of policing on WP. Establishing a consensus is not easy in the first place, and maintaining it against future change is also labor-intensive. Then there is establishing the consistency across articles (where a universe of variations in usage can come into play). And then there is the insistent set of challenges that will undoubtedly ensue, much less the unaware practitioner of a variant. That is why I said so very long ago that consistency has a price. And that is my answer to the reverse of Blueboar's question. Why not consistency? Because it costs too much. We can afford to leave it alone. Evensteven (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

So you would have Wikipedia MOS eliminate earth, moon, sun, universe, solar system and galaxy from the "Celestial Bodies" paragraph? Leave it very generalized? Essentially have the section on "Celestial Bodies" left with only "Names of planets, moons, asteroids, comets, stars, constellations, and galaxies are proper names and begin with a capital letter (The planet Mars can be seen tonight in the constellation Gemini, near the star Pollux). The first letter of every word in such a name is capitalized (Alpha Centauri and not Alpha centauri; Milky Way, not Milky way)." Also leaving out the compounds of generic terms because that is also disputed in style guides and sources. Interesting concept. I'd have to think on that to decide on whether that's better for Wikipedia or simply a pipe dream that would wind up with more edit wars and fighting then ever before. It sounds good on paper but we really don't work and play all that well here... A's in citizenship seem few and far between. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
No need to get snippy. I did not say that representative examples could not be placed in the MOS, as a demonstration of intent. I am saying that having a list of "we shall (or shall not) capitalize the following terms: 1, 2, 3" is not good. Excessive examples are also not good. But a couple, such as you quote, are perfectly acceptable to elucidate the intent. I am not saying we cannot influence people to capitalize the predominant way. I am saying we are begging for trouble and for unproductive work to mandate that they do so. Evensteven (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I apologize if it came across that way (snippy). To be honest I thought it quite interesting. My worries still stand but I always thought that our MOS was getting too particular in its implementation. Many editors take it that "omission" means no. You seem to be saying that omission means it simply wasn't one of the examples or it's something that we need to be flexible on. Truly we may only need the one sentence in "Celestial Bodies" or use just earth and sun as examples of that needed flexibility. I was just trying to get a grasp of how general we could be on this topic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Earth, Moon, Sun, Solar System, Galaxy, and Universe are all in some sense exceptions. They're words that were became part of the language centuries (maybe millennia, I'm no historian of the English language) before we understood that each was one of many. (In the case of "universe", we don't even yet know if it's one of many, but it certainly does get used that way in a scientific context.) We've tried to give the proper noun version of the word a different, unique name, to varying degrees of success. But the upshot is that they're all common nouns that are sometimes used as the name of a specific object, which really makes them a proper noun when used in that context. My subjective impression is that sources capitalize "The Galaxy" and the Moon when used that way nearly always; Sun and Earth usually; Solar System about 50/50, and Universe a minority of the time (but "Universe" certainly isn't what I'd call an uncommon usage). So I really don't think they quite fit in the broader celestial bodies heading and do deserve a mention. Perhaps we could write a sentence that covers this class of cases? A first crack: "Common nouns which are used as the name of a specific celestial body or celestial system should be treated as proper nouns and capitalized only when used in that context." —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 02:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, @Fyunck; sorry if I misinterpreted you. "How general" is indeed the balancing act that always needs working out when there is a problem, and that is something we editors must solve together, in community. "Many editors take it that "omission" means no." seems to me a misinterpretation of the MOS that should be challenged when used. Maybe there needs to be a separate discussion of that point when it arises as a point of contention somewhere. I would argue, though, for keeping the MOS itself as clean as possible. Even the clearest document is subject to alternate interpretations. Consider the US constitution, admirably concise, and free of overspecification. Yet there have always been at least two major political camps over the granting of federal government powers, one claiming that absence of mention implies prohibition of power, the other that it implies absence of restriction. I think ASHill gives us an approach (in the last sentence above) that might serve to address these difficulties in our current situation. However, the statement itself grants permission for capitalization of universe in circumstances which have been disputed in this very discussion. It needs tweaking, but I would say that the form used is at about the right length and level of detail for an MOS. An example or two could be added to clarify intended interpretation. Solar system and universe come to mind as the most contested and therefore most pertinent. Evensteven (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Quick side question relating to "galaxy" (not trying to make a point here... I am asking because I don't know) ... are "Andromeda Galaxy" and "Pegasus Galaxy" proper names for specific galaxies? Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I could say for sure. But I tend to think the proper names are Andromeda and Pegasus, with "galaxy" appended to indicate the entity type. After all, the Milky Way is not always Milky Way Galaxy. "Galaxy" seems optional, and therefore not really a part of the name. Evensteven (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Similarly, one does not see "... the Planet Jupiter ...", but, rather, "... the planet Jupiter ...". Isambard Kingdom (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and the constellation Orion. Evensteven (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Some MOSs consider "Andromeda Galaxy" to be a compound proper noun, whereas others style it as "Andromeda galaxy". I think Wikipedia is one of the latter, though I'm pretty sure Wikipedia isn't consistent. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
@ASHill, I think you are mixing issues. 1) Is "Andromeda Galaxy" a proper noun? 2) Is "Andromeda galaxy" a "style"? Starting with #2, the answer is no. Writing an uncapitalized galaxy means that galaxy is being treated as a common noun, and Andromeda is capitalized as the proper name of the particular galaxy. So, what you are seeing in the MOSes is disagreement as to whether or not "Andromeda Galaxy" is in fact a compound proper noun in itself. Let's not get too stressed out about this. English usage varies so often because there are disagreements, and changes in usage, when they happen, happen over time as one view become predominant over another (if it ever does). And this is just another example. WP can't settle that matter; it just isn't settled, not anywhere, not in any MOS. So please, let no one argue about proper nouns. This is just another example of that whole issue that has involved the other celestial bodies, and collections of bodies (like the solar system and the universe). It isn't settled for us, and so we can't argue on that basis. What we can do is to look at the volume of sources that have been collected here, and simply see that usage is indeed mixed, with certain prevalences in certain places.

I think it is a great error on the part of those who have argued that sources are irrelevant to an MOS. Let me say that the appearance is that there is fear that one or more sources will not give the answer that someone is seeking. If so, that's just dishonest. But it is not necessary to treat sources as dictators, as I have heard some editors suggest in other discussions. If we are intelligent about the attitude we take when approaching them, they can provide a reasonable rationale for a decision. We have always had at least three choices here, about universe, or about the whole catalog of sometimes-capitalized celestial entities: 1) capitalize them (or some of them), consistently, 2) lower-case them, consistently, or 3) allow the usage mixture that exists outside WP to be reflected in a mixture on WP. The sources, especially MOSes, show us something else: namely, that groups or organizations can and do choose to standardize on one usage or the other, in the face of a world of inconsistency. Has anyone seen any of the MOSes state that they do so for the reason of being consistent in their own writings? I would be most surprised if that isn't a reason, for WP is not the only place where some people want consistency so much.

I've said before that I'm not opposed to consistency (personally), but I am opposed to having it shoved down my throat or anyone else's throat. And so I have argued that it is asking for trouble to do so here. Alright, how strong an argument is that? Some other organizations opt for consistency. Maybe they have an authority structure that makes it easier to enforce. Where does that leave us? I think it leaves us exactly where we want to be - back at WP principles and policies, and most importantly, the ones about collegial discussion and assumption of good faith. I have never considered anyone's desire for consistency here to be anything but good faith. But how strong are the arguments for it? Weak enough, in my opinion, because they are mostly opinion and personal desire. But a stronger one has occurred to me: that the desire for consistency is also common enough, and strong enough, and rational enough, in enough human beings, that it is unreasonable to expect that it won't be a force that is here to stay, whoever the individuals are in the community at any one time. And really, don't the MOSes bear that out? More of them seem to make a choice than don't, even without general English usage consistency. And really, don't we see that as one element of this wall of text?

Ok, this calls for collegiality if anything does. The way for WP to avoid fighting over this forever is to avoid authoritarian-type impositions. That means that we need to (make and) record a decision that the MOS is not to be used or interpreted as a stick with which to strike other editors, or to make overblown claims about what isn't so (such as a list purported to be of proper nouns, but whose classification as such is questionable). The MOS must permit editors to be intelligent enough to see and recognize alternates as just that: variable ways of being correct. I think the MOS needs to be somewhat explicit in this regard, so that it reflects a consensus that alternate correct usages exist. But once that is done, it can also go ahead and make a choice for consistency - whatever choice. That choice is what many other MOSes do.

I for one am heartily sick and tired of hearing about debates, fights, disagreements, disputes, and all manner of tendentiousness on WP. I think that this wall of text is mostly about that. It's not that the editors here have been so very bad - quite the contrary in fact, especially considering what occurs elsewhere at times. But I still think that contention tends to be the normative attitude in discussion, and I think it infects us all. I am not immune. This discussion is a great example, because mostly it has been conducted well within WP guidelines, and yet it shows the strain.

Therefore, I am going to back away from my argument against setting a capitalization scheme in the MOS. Some are afraid of inconsistency, I have been afraid of ongoing battles. And fear should not rule. If we can take an attitude that is actually fearless (and not forceful towards others), maybe we can get a resolution that doesn't have anyone's back to the wall.

Here's an idea, based on some personal preferences. Take it as a proposal or just as the form a proposal could take; I regard it only as an illustration.

  1. Make sure that capitalization in direct quotes of sources remains as in the source (as always).
  2. Make sure the context is in regard to celestial entities only (single- or multiple- body).
  3. Proper nouns: recognize Earth, Sun, and Moon as proper nouns for those bodies (therefore capitalized in that context). There is no compounding problem there.
  4. Do not recognize universe as a proper noun: it is not a single body, unlike the others, and there is no other one (except for fictional or hypothetical entities). This recognition is in deference to prevalent practice, as shown in sources.
  5. Compound proper nouns: recognize that there are alternate valid opinions as to what they are. But choose as follows:
    1. Recognize Solar System as a compound proper name. The generic common name can be designated "stellar system". Let the MOS designate the application of those terms so that Solar System consistently means our own stellar system, and stellar system means any other such.
    2. Do not recognize Andromeda Galaxy (or any other galaxy) as a compound proper name. Recognize the name as Andromeda. So, Andromeda is capitalized, and galaxy is not. It's a choice.
    3. Recognize Milky Way as the compound proper name of our own galaxy, but not Milky Way Galaxy. Likewise for others where there is a compound form preceding the word galaxy.

If we approach this problem as a matter of recognition of what is and what is not a proper name (for the purposes of the WP MOS), then we can also make a statement that the MOS recognizes that alternates exist in English, but that MOS simply chooses for consistency of usage on WP (and that should be explicit in the MOS).

To me, this approach seems to defuse much contention. Anyone else think so too? Evensteven (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Introducing galaxy, in the context of the Andromeda Galaxy, only serves to confuse the issue. Celestial bodies has two paragraphs. The second of these deals with compound names, where a 'designator', such as galaxy, is part of the name. The second paragraph deals with capitalisation of the designator (ie the Andromeda Galaxy or Halley's Comet) and is quite independent and sparate from the issue which is subject of the first paragraph. To this extent, the thread started by Blueboar's question (without making any comment about intent) is a red herring. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
It really doesn't help me in my own overview. I would either tend to follow ChicagoMOS which capitalizes none of the terms earth, moon, sun, solar system, galaxy or universe (but capitalize earth only when used in conjunction with other capitalized celestial bodies)... or follow something like the InternationalAstronomicalUnion and capitalize all individual celestial bodies when used in an astronomical context. I look at Halley's Comet as a compound proper name to be capitalized. I feel Milky Way Galaxy should be capitalized as a compound name. Also because there are differing definitions of Milky Way with some scientists saying Milky Way is really only the band of light we see in the evening sky... not the whole Galaxy. I would capitalize and use both Andromeda and Andromeda Galaxy. My own views of course, but in looking at all the writing here thus far, it's what I would do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The first of the paragraphs in Celestial bodies, deals with capitalisation of 'earth' as the planet Earth, 'moon' as Earth's moon and 'sun' as our star. The examples made these contexts quite clear, while unfocussed discussion has led to a blurring of the context. If Evensteven and Blueboar wish to advocate a more laissez faire approach to the use of capitals, then attention should be directed to the lead of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters, since it is the statements made there that are used to create an environment of conformity and which are ultimately used by some to impose their will on others. I would also suggest that it is a lack of clarity of intent at this particular point which makes fringe issues regarding capitalisation potentially so contentious. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
A systemic approach that lumps: earth, moon, sun, solar system, galaxy and universe together because they may be considered celestial bodies but which ignores the fundamental differences in these words (and whether capitalisation is inherently appropriate in each case) is both arbitrary and superficial. It is like a cataloging system that groups: black bears, polar bears, teddy bears, koala bears and Theodore Roosevelt together. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, it was just a thought. Evensteven (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe it is arbitrary in the least to lump earth, moon, sun, solar system, galaxy and universe together in astronomical terms... and we have plenty of style guides, dictionaries and colleges that tell us so. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I suggest your point 5 would be incredibly contentious. The inclusion of 'solar system' in the list is a point of contention (probably as much as 'universe'). The rest of your section 5 is contrary to the second paragraph of Celestial bodies. Furthermore, it does not resolve capitalisation of 'the galaxy' when it is used as a substitution for saying 'Milky Way', which is the intent of including it with Earth, etc. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Re your point 4: why does something need to be a single body to be a proper noun? The Milky Way is no more a single body than the Universe is; the only difference with respect to capitalization (as far as I see) is that it happens to have a name that is not also a common noun. And "Andromeda" is not the name of a galaxy, it's the name of a constellation for which the Andromeda Galaxy is named. But I do generally agree with you that complete, enforced consistency across Wikipedia is not necessarily a good thing when it's clear that there isn't a consensus (as appears to be the case here). —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Other (fictional) Universes

Question...would the guidance under discussion in the above RFCs affect articles like Marvel Universe and DC Universe (and related articles)... Has anyone thought to notify WP:WikiProject Comics and ask for their opinion on the issue? Blueboar (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The MOS section that's being discussed is headed "Celestial bodies" and deals with usage in astronomical contexts; I don't know why you would think that it would affect that stuff (or why the comics project might have any useful input). Deor (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Well... arguabley, the various comic book Universes are celestial bodies (albeit fictional ones)... no?
I suppose what I am concerned about is this: would writing guidance (any guidance) about the capitalization of the word "universe" have unintended consequences... Would someone read the guidance, and apply it in situations we are not intending it to be applied to? Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
All guidance has the potential for being used out of context. For example, the MOS requires either NM or nmi to be used as symbol for nautical mile, defined as 1852 metres. But someone somewhere could use the term "nautical mile" to mean a statute mile in a nautical context. In that situation the symbol mi should be used, but that is not stated explicitly. Do you see that as a reason to remove the advice for nautical mile? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Let me be more specific... What I am concerned will happen is that someone will read the guidance here, and rush off to "conform" all articles that contain the word universe... insisting that Marvel Universe, DC Universe and similar titles be moved to Marvel universe (etc.)... "because the MOS says so". This will confuse and upset the good folks at WikiProject:Comics (who are not part of this discussion). They will say that the lower case usage is "wrong" (at least in their context). Huge debates will follow... debates that would not have taken place if we had not amended the MOS to specify what the capitalization of the word universe should be.
In other words, I am concerned that, in a good faith attempt to resolve argument that affects a few astronomy pages we will end up causing disruption and argument at other pages... pages where there is currently no argument or disruption... which will then (inevitably) morph into with further disruption here at the MOS page - as people try to further amend the guidance to fit the needs and standards for every specific topic area. Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
If "Marvel Universe" is a proper name it should be capitalized, and not otherwise, exactly the same as for "Miss Universe". It has nothing to do with the present discussion about celestial bodies. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
It shouldn't... but from my experience, it will not be long before someone ends up arguing that it does. A good rule of thumb when crafting policy/guidance... Always think long and hard about the ways that people will misinterpret what is written. Never assume others will understand your intent. Blueboar (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you're making that up. I've not seen anything like that in my extensive experience with WP capitalization issues. Dicklyon (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Blue make a good point here, and I've seen it too often myself. It's probably why the framers here tended to make things more general, to allow wikipedia to breath, and to allow projects much more leeway. We have gotten much more specific through the years instead of allowing flexibility. Whether that's good or bad is a judgement issue but it's probably why our MOS was written as a guideline as opposed to policy, and always to be superseded by common sense. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you're wrong on the intent; read about WP:List of policies and guidelines#Guideline. And repeating Blueboar's hallucination without any example does not make it more real. As for wikiprojects going off and capitalizing their own important stuff, that's more part of the problem than part of the solution. Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I did and stand by my statement. And what you feel is part of the problem I look at as flexibility and common sense. I'm not sure saying that Blueboar's observation is a "hallucination" really helps anything. Also MOS has to bend to what editors want. If more articles are going against a particular MOS guideline, then it is MOS that has to change, not the articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Blueboar made up a problem, unsupported by example, of people blindly following MOS where it doesn't apply, saying "from my experience, it will not be long before someone ends up arguing that it does" [require lowercase universe in Miss Universe etc.]. You supported this hallucination, and now you're going off in some other direction. Cut it out. Dicklyon (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
LOL... just because you don't have the ability to see it doesn't make it a hallucination. MOS gets misinterpreted and overinterpreted and we try to deal with it when it happens. So try to cut out your snottiness and we'll all be a lot better off. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The comment was more about Blueboar's (and your) inability to show it than on my inability to see it; show an example and I'll see if I can see it. In particular, an example of people applying MOS lowercase guideance to things that are obviously proper names, like Miss Universe and Marvel Universe, which are consistently capitalized in sources [8]. I've never seen it, but if you find an example, I'll look. (though there do seem to be a few contexts such as "entire Marvel universe" where "universe" is used generically, and not as part of the proper name "Marvel Universe"; would you object if a WP editor followed sources and lowercased that?) Dicklyon (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I probably wouldn't object if an editor lowercased them, or uppercase others. I'd likely ask the project if they have some internal guideline that handles it, and if not I'd refer to MOS. If MOS isn't specific I'd leave it alone. If I did change it and it got changed back, I'd look at it as a minor thing and move along. I'm guessing you'd handle it differently? Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
It's hard to guess what you're referring to that you changed, so hard to comment on what I would do. Without linked examples, you're just making noise, like Blueboar. Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm answering your own question "would you object if a WP editor followed sources and lowercased that?" so that's what I'm referring to. If that's making noise then your question was nothing but noise. Goodness Gracious. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
You're saying you'd be OK letting editors lowercase universe in "Miss universe"? And speculating that I might object and fight it if someone did? Yes, I would not let that stand. Dicklyon (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Goodness... you said ""Marvel Universe"; would you object if a WP editor followed sources and lowercased that?" I answered that per you saying "following sources." I have no idea what "Marvel Universe", but you said if someone followed sources and lower-cased it... I answered based on that question of yours. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

This discussion refers to 'Celestial bodies' it does not directly relate to the arts or theology but may guide and inform discussion in these project areas. What User:Dondervogel 2 said: "If "Marvel Universe" is a proper name it should be capitalized, and not otherwise, exactly the same as for "Miss Universe". It has nothing to do with the present discussion about celestial bodies." IMO I belive User:Blueboar is correct to observe that 'Marvel Universe' is incorrect. Its use is likely to be challenged regardless of the result of this RfC. Remember too, that this discussion pivots on the premiss that "the Universe" is "our universe". I perceive that, subject to the RfC, examples will give some clarification to this. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I admit I have no idea what the "Marvel Universe" is, but I took it from the discussion to be an acknowledged proper name, like for a comic book series or something. Clue me in? Did Blueboar really say caps are not appropriate for that one, or did one of us misread him? Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
@Dicklyon think you will need to read the link to make sense of this one Marvel Universe. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
That looks like a proper name to me. Did Blueboar suggest that caps are incorrect there? Dicklyon (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you misinterpreted what he was referring to when he said "It shouldn't..."? Dicklyon (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
No, I am NOT suggesting that the caps are incorrect there... Quite the opposite, in fact. I am concerned that others might read the proposed "use lower case" instruction that has been proposed, and mistakenly try to conform the comics articles to that instruction. Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
That's what I thought. And that's the concern you supported by what I called a "hallucination", since you gave no example of where your experience might have encountered such a thing. Dicklyon (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Sigh... ok I was trying to not go there, but if you insist on an example... your own recent actions in trying to conform the capitalization of words like "movement", "strike" and "massacre" at numerous articles come to mind. OK, I admit that the specifics of the situation are not exactly the same, but the disruption caused by your actions is analogous to what I am concerned about. Blueboar (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Most of those have succeeded with consensus to lowercase, since widespread lowercase in sources supports the interpretation that they are not proper names. This is what I was afraid you might be trying to imply, but it is unfair to link these routine and consensus applications of MOS to things like downcasing universe in proper names like "Miss Universe". So you're just making noise with this red herring. There has been no "disruption" from these except where Randy Kryn decided he needed to revert four times one day and again right when his first block expired. Dicklyon (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I disagree... there was significant disruption. OK, the disruption did not rise to the level of needing Admin sanctions... but the disruption took place. And the success or failure of an RM debate is immaterial to whether it caused disruption. Sometimes the ends don't justify the means. Blueboar (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I was commenting that Marvel Universe would likely (at some time) come under scrutiny of 'anti-capitalists' as 'unnecessary' capitalisation of 'universe' regardless of this discussion or its outcome and regardless of whether or not it is actually a proper name. My observation, on the basis of arguments used in CMOS and then extrapolated to here, is that the use of 'Universe' in this example is quite assailable. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

And that is what concerns me. I agree that it is likely that someone is going to challenge "Marvel Universe" (a usage that has been perfectly stable for years) and insist on "Marvel universe", and that is exactly the sort of thing that will royally piss off the editors at the comics WikiProject. I don't really care whether the challenge is "correct" or not... it's the challenge itself that would be the cause the disruption. I would like to find a way to avoid that. Blueboar (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like we got you two smoking the same shit, anyway. Perhaps that's progress? I'll agree, too, that it would piss me off if someone did that. But I'm not able to imagine how/why/when anyone would. Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
By the way, "Marvel Universe" is also the registered trademark of Cadence Industries Corporation d.b.a. Marvel Comics Group CORPORATION DELAWARE 387 Park Ave., S. New York NEW YORK 10016, so per MOS:TM it would be capitalized for that reason if no other. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I was commenting that Marvel Universe would likely (at some time) come under scrutiny of 'anti-capitalists' as 'unnecessary' capitalisation of 'universe' regardless of this discussion or its outcome and regardless of whether or not it is actually a proper name. My observation, on the basis of arguments used in CMOS and then extrapolated to here, is that the use of 'Universe' in this example is quite assailable. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I was suggesting that the challenge is likely inevitable, regardless of of this discussion or its outcome but because of the opening statement of MOS:Caps that: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization", and because many perceive that the WP:MOS and CMOS go hand in glove on this matter. It is perhaps ironic that raising this particular example has accelerated the inevitable. However, as a trade mark, the capitalisation is unassailable.Cinderella157 (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Right, and I was acknowledging that you're on the same hallucination as Blueboar is. There's no basis for a fear that editors will try to decapitalize proper names and trademarks, as far as I know. Why do you imagine someone would take on such a campaign against MOS, common sense, and sources? Oh, I know, maybe because there are those who go the other way, wanting to capitalize things against MOS, common sense, and sources – like "the universe". Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dicklyon, Please see https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters/Archive_6#Laws.2C_comets.2C_eras.2C_and_suchlike

This tradition of English usage seems to date from at least the Elizabethan era, and MOS:CAPS says that we avoid unnecessary capitalization. Capitalization is necessary for proper names, and most sources capitalize more than WP does, so a lack of capitalization in broad usage is pretty good evidence against interpretation as proper name. If you admit a difference between a name and a proper name, it's less confusing; when a particular instance of generic object is named for a person or something, it is traditional to not include the generic as part of a proper name; the name is better thought of as a description, as the law articulated by Murphy, or the comet described by Halley, or the era of Elizabeth. Dicklyon (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Also:

Not all popular usage is reliable, true. But things in books are generally considered reliable. The tendency of specialists to capitalize their own subject matter, when general authors do not do so, has been commented on many times, and is well represented in the astronomy magazines (though the name you quoted is not one) and is enshrined in the recommendations of the IAU. The question for WP is thus whether to follow the general practice, or the practice of specialist communities. Recall the RM on Halley's comet was winning until Greg came in and started throwing around his weight as long-time serious amateur astronomer (asserting: I’ve been an amateur astronomer for 40 years. Indeed, there is mixed use of “Halley's Comet” and “Halley's comet.” But when it comes to deciding what is most-proper, encyclopedic practices, one must look towards the quality of the sources. Best practices within this discipline has been to follow the lead of the International Astronomical Union.). But it has not generally been WP policy to adopt recent specialist org recommendations as "best practices", except within some projects. Most of the votes to capitalize were from astronomers, I think. Is this sort of "local consensus" the way forward? Or not? Let's decide. Dicklyon (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Withstanding that Marvel Universe is a trademark, I suggest that the uppercase of 'universe' is quite assailable, even if it is a proper noun, and I could make the case that 'Marvel' is actually a attributive noun, being used to describe the appellative, 'universe'. This would also be analogous to 'the Kantian imperative (yes, Kantian is actually an adjective in this case) and other named laws and the like. Not withstanding that I was actually arguing against the concerns held by Blueboar, the only smoke I smell is burning fuse (a reference not to obscure I hope). :) Cinderella157 (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Cinderella157 (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I did mention that I see in sources a few contexts such as "the entire Marvel universe" where "universe" is used as a generic as opposed to the trademark/title "Marvel Universe". But that's no reason to claim it's a generic when it's being used as a proper name or trademark, as is the more typical case. Caps in our article Marvel Universe are unassailable, according to anything I've ever seen on WP, and Blueboar (and now you) is just making up trouble to worry otherwise. We couldn't even get Halley's comet fixed, with a majority of sources and guides supporting lowercase for that. Dicklyon (talk) 08:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dicklyon, Initial comments were made without the knowledge that Marvel Universe was a trademark. My comments, made with this knowledge, acknowledge that the capitalisation is unassailable. It was certainly not implied or made explicit that 'Marvel Universe' was a trademark until you stated this was the case. I clearly differentiated between 'Marvel Universe' and 'Miss Universe' from the outset. I was certainly not "making up trouble to worry otherwise". "We couldn't even get Halley's comet fixed, with a majority of sources and guides supporting lowercase for that" - even though it is a proper name? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Um... Are we sure that Marvel Universe is a trademark? Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar 14:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Cinderella157 (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Straw poll

This is a difficult discussion to follow and a difficult subject to discuss. The lead on proper nouns is hard enough to process. A straw poll occurred to me, to see what kind of consensus might be decided at the eventual end of this discussion:

  • A: The word "universe" should never be capitalized.
  • B: The word "Universe" should always be capitalized.
  • C: The word "universe" should be capitalized depending on context.

Xaxafrad (talk) 06:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC) This poll is now CLOSED. Thank you all for your input. Xaxafrad (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

A: don't capitalize

With the obvious exceptions of first word in sentence, title, or heading, or when part of a proper name or trademark such as "Miss Universe" or "Marvel Universe" as supported by consistent capitalization in sources.

Please mark replies with a numbered-list (eg: "# comments").

  1. Universe (as in "the universe", or "our universe") should not be capitalized according to most guides, and consistent with the MOS at present since it is seldom capitalized in any context in the majority of sources. Sources that do capitalize it are either rather specialist sources, or they explain why they are making the exception, capitalizing for reasons beyond the reason that our MOS recommends. I'm not necessarily in favor of amending the MOS to say so, however, as creeping instruction seems unnecessary. Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. I'm here. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

B: always capitalize

Please mark replies with a numbered-list (eg: "# comments").

C: capitalize case-by-case

Please mark replies with a numbered-list (eg: "# comments").

  1. Depending on sources, capitalization may be called for, but I note the first words on the MoS:Caps page include: "avoids unnecessary capitalization". (....maybe I should comment in the A section...I can do it later, maybe) Ignore my thinking out loud. Xaxafrad (talk) 06:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Capitalise when used as a proper noun, and not otherwise. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Capitalise when used as the name of the universe we live in, and not otherwise. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 13:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. Capitalization depends on context. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. As with earth, moon, sun, solar system and galaxy, it depends on the situation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments on straw poll

If I've worded this poll wrongly in some way, please don't hesitate to suggest (or edit yourself) proper revisions. Xaxafrad (talk) 06:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this what we already have? We can simply count to get the straw poll. That's why it was asked that we number in the first place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I've tried to follow the many alternative discussions, but I don't see any sign of moving towards a consensus. I'm not sure which subsections are still active. Essentially, I would oppose adding the word "universe" to the MoS page. Xaxafrad (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The main two options are add "universe" and add "not universe." The original two options don't have the choice of simply not adding universe and leaving it as is. That would be located at "Alternative Six, Neither" for leaving it as is. That's as close to case-by-case as we have. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this is complicated, but I think adding a straw poll adds complication. People have expressed their opinions above at #Add "universe" to the sentence and the choices below that. Respectfully, I think it would be a good idea if this poll were withdrawn. The consensus can be determined by an uninvolved administrator later. This RfC will have been open for 14 days on February 17; that could be a good time to close the discussion. SchreiberBike talk 07:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't perceive that anybody has suggested at any time that 'universe' would be capitalised universally. I would venture that the two originally proposed options 'generally' encompass 'most' of the opinions expressed except that some commentators would 'additionally' add or subtract words from the proposed options. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
"Most" is probably true, although there are some who want no changes and that it might be fine the way it is now with "Universe" added in neither a positive nor negative light. I have to say that "capitalized universally" as if it was Thomas Jefferson, would be the absolute worst choice. I'm not sure if that is exemplified as an option in any style guide or reference work at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The straw poll is worded quite differently to the RfC. If we fill it in perhaps it will point the way towards consensus. I encourage editors to do so. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the straw poll asks a very different question which I think is a necessary first step: Should "universe" be capitalized when used as the name our our universe? Based on the discussion here, I think that's actually pretty close to a binary question. After we answer that (and only then), we can decide how the statement should be worded in the MOS. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 13:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, before we get to deciding how to word the MOS... we need to ask if whewther need (or want) to mention it. In other words, once we answer the the always/never/sometimes question... we then need to ask: "OK, given that we now have consensus, do we need (or want) to mention it in the MOS?" And only if the answer is "Yes, we need (or want) to mention it" should we worry about how to word it. We need to consider whether mentioning the capitalization of this specific word is really necessary, or if it is simply a form of Instruction Creep. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Not explicitly mentioning it in the MOS is certainly one option for the wording in the MOS. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes you have worded it very wrongly, such that it completely misses the issue about the cases in which to capitalize. You can tell from some of the responses, and my clarification of case A. Like ASHill is clear on what he means, but the other responses to case C might actually support case A if the dichotomy was made clear; can't tell from what they said there what their opinion would be. And case B is just stupid. If you want to get anything out of a new simplified poll, start over. Dicklyon (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

What about the following options:
A: Always treat "universe" as a common noun except when as part of a multi-word proper noun and therefore only capitalize when grammar otherwise requires capitalization.
B: Always treat "Universe" as a proper noun and therefore always capitalize.
C: Treat "universe" as a proper noun when using it as the name of the universe we live in.
D: No preference on whether universe is a proper noun, but may participate in discussion regarding wording in the MOS after a consensus is reached on this question.
I think that's the real dichotomy. (I'm pretty sure there will be no votes for option B, but it can stay since the straw poll started with it.) I don't think this reworded straw poll will actually change any of the existing votes with the possible exception of Xaxafrad's vote. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
A dichotomy is "a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different." Not four things that overlap. The relevant dichotomy is A vs. C. The others are chaff. Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I would observe at this point that option 1 of this RfC is to capitalise universe in specific contexts - it is to confirm that it satisfies the general criteria of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters in these contexts. The purpose of option 2 is to make explicit that universe does not satisfy the general criteria in these contexts. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters states: "words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." I am pretty certain that it was Fyunck(click) that observed: "The sources are all over the place." What we have observed has been a 'source race'. But, no sources have been presented which are 'definative'. There is nothing to indicate that 'universe' is "consistently capitalized in sources" in the contexts specified. I would note that the sources also tend to confirm the propensity of specialists to capitalise within their field (Wikipedia:Specialist style fallacy). On this basis, I cannot see how a consensus for capitalisation can be achieved within the context as defined by the MOS? Furthermore, there is a case to be made that "doing nothing defaults to capitalising 'universe'". The division that occurred before this RfC suggests a need to make explicit a determination WRT capitalisation of 'universe'. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that's a lot to process. I think I can follow and contribute to this discussion more meaningfully now. I would like to close this poll, reflect on the advice given, and possibly start a new, re-worded poll. Thank you all for your input. Xaxafrad (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I think I did say that sources are all over the place. But, and this is important, the sources are all over the place for earth, moon, sun, solar system and galaxy too. To single out only universe is absurd to me and why I have said we must look at all these items at once and either lowercase them all, or capitalize them all when talking in an astronomical context. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@Fyunck, does this mean that you are opposed to the RFC as it is framed? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes. But I said that before it was even posted here, when it was on the drawing board. For me it has always been ridiculous to single out one entity when they are all in the same celestial filing cabinet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay. I apologize, I thought you were wanting the RFC to have just the two alternatives we now seem to have, but I see, now, that you actually prefer minimal capitalization across the board. I guess I've lost track of things (in all this discussion). Isambard Kingdom (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
So you're clear on my opinion. I feel this rfc is going to cause problems because we are hemmed in to two choices... and editors have said that neither one are what they want, but they don't have a choice. That's wrong and it may cause problems come closing time with "clarity" of !votes. What my first choice would be is to capitalize earth, moon, sun, solar system, galaxy and universe but only in astronomical context and only as we do earth, moon, sun and solar system now. But my close second choice would be to lowercase all of them all the time, except earth when it is used in sentences that already have capitalized celestial bodies like Mercury and Uranus. Both are fair, and easy to explain to newbies. That's always been my opinion here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click), As noted in a number of places, this RfC has been framed to narrowly focus on 'universe' so as not to become imponderable because of the myriad of possible combination preventing a consensus. It was discussed again when Dicklyon raised his option 3. I would suggest that there are clear indications of a fuller review of this section depending on the outcome of this RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I understand that, but if you have two bad choices the result must also be bad. One may reach consensus between those two bad choices but it's not what the majority of editors would really want. You make it sound like you culled two compromise solutions that we have been forced to choose between. If one of them gets implemented it could very well be a minority choice which will lead to a quick revisit. Or the moon will will come up next on the slate and editors will bring universe right back into the fray where we'll have these same massive lists of sources that lowercase moon and sources that uppercase Moon. It'll be very similar to the endless lists we have now. So yes, I look at the forced choice as bogus... and I'm certainly not alone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click), Of earth, moon, sun, solar system, galaxy and universe I believe that there are 64 permutations by which individual words (yes, I know 'solar system' is not one word) may or may not be capitalised (I was never that good at probabilities so I might well be wrong). The question is, is an RfC identifying all of these possibilities all at once likely to achieve a consensus for one of them? Or is it perhaps better to address each individually on its particular merits, noting that earth, moon and sun have already been addressed. I acknowledge you saying: "I for one have trouble separating and judging the terms one by one", (Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)). But at least, this way, a consensus is likely to be achieved. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but I think the premiss is simply wrong. Would the NY Yankees rather have 1-5 players of group a,b,c,d,e or perhaps 1-5 players from group f,g,h,j,k? Hmmm.... lot of tough choices there. Lets give them only choice g vs choice d. That's it. They choose choice g. It was much easier to choose between those two. However they really wanted players b,c,d,& e together. But since they were given a bogus choice it's all they could get. I don't do a lot of astronomy editing, though I have friends who teach it. So if it turns out that moon is the only word of the bunch that gets capitalized here, then that's just the way it is and I'll go back to editing other types of articles. I won't be joyous and I'll think it very strange and a poor choice for wikipedia readers/editors, but I'll admit I will have seen much odder consensus choices here than that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click), Your analogy of what is happening here is quite wrong. We are not choosing groups of players but we are considering whether a single particular player should or should not be on the team. Furthermore, the other players in the team are also subject to likely review after deciding on this particular player. If this happens, then each player will be decided on the merits of that particular player. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
And hence we will never agree on this aspect because I find your single player synopsis quite wrong and perplexing. You'll note that the player picked would not even be a player on their team if they weren't hamstrung to choose between only two players. Well see if an administrator feels this was a true choice when limited to only two horses in a race. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click), It is not a choice between two players. It is a choice as to whether the player, 'universe', is on the team on not on the team. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes it IS a choice between two players. Player A may not be picked against player B. But players A,C, and D may be overwhelming picks against players B, Q, and Z. But since players C, D, Q and Z are forbidden, then player B gets picked. Once on the team the options completely change in what other players will work well with player B. Now it could be players S and W will come into the mix. Anyway, I think it's clear where I stand on this Rfc, and have stood since the beginning. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Closing plan

In the early discussion of this RfC I proposed that the RfC be closed after it has been open for 14 days. That would be February 16 at 00:16 UTC in about 4 days. The plan was to ask an uninvolved administrator to perform the close. We could ask for a volunteer here or request one at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. I note that so far we have expressed about 60,000 words on this. I also note that after this is closed, it may make sense to make a followup RfC to change related words.

How do people feel about this plan to close? Would anyone like to propose a different plan? SchreiberBike talk 23:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that there is no consensus on an outcome. But this discussion hasn't even yielded a consensus on what we're discussing and what the options are, let alone the outcome or, beyond that, what to do. So I'm afraid I think we're nowhere. I think the discussion needs to be focused on the question of whether universe should be capitalized first (ie put off any discussion of MOS wording) to have any hope of a path towards consensus, but there are others who disagree with that approach. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 01:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, there is at least a clear consensus to not add universe to the list of words to capitalize. Whether we need to add a separate recommendation to not capitalize it, the closer can decide. Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Huh? I don't see that as a clear consensus at all. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 04:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps more clear to some than to others. The recent straw poll certainly does confuse the issue with its partial and ambiguous responses. Dicklyon (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
It's the closer who makes a call as to whether or not there is a possible consensus. I am certain there is disagreement within the editing group here. I think that for all the useful guidance collected, there is no agreement on what to do with it. So I'm afraid that I must agree that we are nowhere, with scarce a hope of landing anywhere. Evensteven (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Probably true with regards to this Rfc. If hemmed in and forced to choose only universe, it looks like the poll for adding it is a no. But there is no consensus to add "not universe" either. I think many are dismayed by the choices. Of course a closer may feel differently (if there is one since there is no requirement to close an rfc). Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I am dismayed not only by the RFC "choices" (not the real choices), but by the way they have been presented. I suspect that has a lot to do with the lack of consensus. A different presentation of choices might yield different results. Or maybe not. I have tried some ideas for approaching it differently, but they didn't take hold either, and I'm on empty. I'd welcome another kind of brainstorm. Evensteven (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I support SchreiberBike's closing plan. This RfC was started and worded very specifically, and the discussion has run off the rails. Whether it can be said that there is a consensus or not, this RfC should be closed and a new section started to decide what to do with the words that have already been added to the MoS. I would recommend the next discussion to decide whether or not to continue to include "solar system", given how it was originally added without any discussion. There was already a discussion, years ago, on "sun", "moon", and "earth", and so I feel we may not necessarily need to revisit those words. Xaxafrad (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I would recommend not to exclude sun, moon and earth since they are linked to universe, solar system and galaxy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Sun, moon, earth, solar system, and galaxy are not part of this RfC, so I would oppose answering it as part of closing this RfC. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that the discussion has made clear that the RfC wasn't formulated quite right (in hindsight) in that it tries to get consensus on too broad a set of questions at once (both how universe should be capitalized and what the wording in the MOS should be). We can't agree on MOS wording until we have a decision about what the practice should be. I think we need to scrap coming to a conclusion on the RfC and instead ask a simple yes or no question on which there's real (and mostly binary, I think) disagreement: Should "universe" be capitalized as a proper name when used as the name of the universe we live in? I think we all agree that, in practice, some sources answer that question yes while others answer it no. Many of us have preferences (personally, my answer is yes), but I for one would be happy to abide by whichever answer we come to. Then, we can decide whether any wording change to the MOS is required and what the wording should be with much narrower parameter space. The straw poll started by Xaxafrad actually does this and has the potential to clarify things, I think (since option B is unlikely to attract any support); the main problem with it is that it was started by a single user with the motivation of asking for a Cliff's Notes version of the wall of text instead of with an agreement to come to a consensus on that more narrow question. Therefore, many involved editors have chosen not to participate, which leaves us (or someone) to divine opinions from the wall of text. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
No, the discussion has not "made clear that the RfC wasn't formulated quite right" (I still believe it was done right). No, we do not need to scrap coming to a conclusion (we still need a conclusion). No, the "simple yes or no question" is not simple (it adds the contested notion that Universe is a name rather than an emphasis). No, we do not all agree there are any sources that "in practice, answer that question yes" (the tiny minority of pro-upper-case sources are too vague to allow for such certainty). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
It is clear, however, that there is disagreement about how it was formulated. I will make clear to all that my opposition to its formulation is one reason I cannot support any of the alternatives. So, whether or not the formulation is the best one, it is clear that it affects the outcome. Evensteven (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan: That was precisely the contested notion I was trying to head towards a decision on (I think a consensus is unlikely, but we can decide one way or the other): is the word "universe" a proper name when referring to the universe we live in? If and when it's a proper name, it should be capitalized, or is there disagreement with that very basic statement? So I though that the underlying question is whether "universe" is ever a proper name. If my question should be reworded to make clear that the question is whether "universe" is ever a proper name, that's fine. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support sending this to an uninvolved admin for closure... for one thing, the closing admin can clarify whether the RfC was formulated right or not (and tell us why). The admin's comments may also help us clarify which of the many issues raised have consensus (and which don't). Closure of the current RFC does not mean our discussions have to come to an end. Closure can be seen as as a step towards resolving the issue. Blueboar (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Definitely agree. Evensteven (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not recall a single comment arguing against capitalisation of "Universe" when used as a proper noun. If there is consensus on anything it is on that. Where we differ is on when it is a proper noun, if ever. I too support move towards closure. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Nor do I. But there is not consensus that it is a proper name. Evensteven (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually my second choice, following something like the Chicago Manual of Style, would use lowercase of universe, moon, sun, and solar system 100% of the time. Earth also except when used with other capitalized astronomical objects. I would say that's a comment against capitalization when used as a proper noun. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
To me it sounds more like a statement that earth (or Earth) can in the specified context be a proper noun, whereas the other bodies mentioned cannot, even in that same context. But frankly, if the RfC concludes that universe is not considered a proper noun, I would argue that neither should be solar system, sun, or moon. I hesitate to say the same for earth, and perhaps this should be the only exception. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
No, no, no! The point here is that no one argued (earlier) against capitalization of a proper name. The arguments about capitalization were always about whether or not it is a proper name. For myself, I think Sun and Moon are proper names and should be capitalized for that reason, but I think solar system is an open question out there in usage land. I don't know CMS's basis for all lowercase, but if its reason is that moon and sun are not proper names, then perhaps that is not such a settled question as I think it is. But if that is not their reason, then what is that reason? Do you know? Or do you know it's related to proper names? The MOS guidance is not just about the end decision on capitalization. It's also about the reasons for the decision. And that's something we've been trying to get clear in this discussion all along. We can't just assume the reason.
This thread has also departed from the one proper to this section. Evensteven (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The present text reads "The words sun, earth, moon and solar system are capitalized (as proper names) when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body". Where is the assumption? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Assuming the reason for the Chicago MOS style, not the WP MOS. I think that was clear enough from context. Evensteven (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I argued from day 1, from before this rfc started, that we either capitalize universe as we do earth, moon, sun and solar system OR we lowercase all of them all of the time, except perhaps earth, as some other guides do. So that no, no, no is kind of out of place. The CMoS just says don't ever capitalize them, it doesn't say why. Many sources that say capitalize Universe don't really say why, they just say capitalize it in astronomical context. But someone has argued against capitalization of all the terms.... me. It just was my second choice, not my first choice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that you don't have the reason for CMoS and many others, and yes, many don't say. I'm just saying that we can't therefore assume we know what the reason is. Yes, I know what we have done. The discussion is about what we should do, and your recommendation is clear, so thanks, but there is not consensus on it. It's not inconsistent, and it's not illogical; it's just not agreed. I am also saying that there's no reason the WP MOS cannot say what its reasoning is. We can state that it is because we choose to accept certain names as proper names, or another reason, or we can say "lowercase despite proper name". These are all options. We just don't yet have any straw poll on what the support is here for any of them, because those questions have not been asked that way. Evensteven (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), Earlier, herein: "Per the Chicago Style Guide (which has to be the most mentioned guide by far in all my wikpedia conversations) the earth is not a proper name." You were politely asked to verify this but didn't. And just to be clear, you would argue against capitalisation of any of the terms (ie sun, moon, solar system, galaxy and universe) regardless of whether or not they are (in context) actually proper names but you would support capitalisation of 'earth', despite having cited CMOS as stating 'earth' is not a proper name? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Excellent, and thanks. We now have guidance from the CMoS. It surprises me somewhat, but that is why it is so important to ask the right question. And I thank you, Cinderella157, for getting an answer. We now know that CMoS does not make a recommendation for small-casing a proper name - at least, one of these mentioned. It is my thought also that the WP MOS should continue to uppercase all proper names, and we can follow suit by declaring that we recognize certain possibilities as proper names, and not others. We can also say why, and where we got agreeing opinion(s). (All this "saying" can also be relegated to a note or footnote, so as not to clutter the primary text of the WP MOS, but then the information will be there if someone wants to raise the issue again for discussion. I do think we should work to prevent undue repetitions of discussions like this.) Evensteven (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@Evensteven, Please re-read my post. Fyunck made this statement, citing the CMOS. I had previously asked that this be clarified and it has not been - so I have not got an answer yet. I agree with your observation regarding footnotes, as you will see below. Or perhaps an appendix page that summarises discussions and consensus for each section. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, indeed. I jumped right through the quote marks (and into a flawed conclusion). Ok, but Fyunck, you can see why it's important to know. Evensteven (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Shoot, I bookmarked it but somehow can't find it. I'll search my browser history tonight to make sure I didn't mix up AP style guide and Chicago's. AP's Style guide is capitalize earth when used as the proper name of a planet and do not capitalize sun and moon. UNLV says they use the MLA guide for formatting and the Chicago Style Guide for writing. UNLV then continues with when to capitalize earth and not to capitalize sun and moon. That should be based on CMoS, but I'll check to see if I can find the exact quote. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I did find one thing kind of interesting here at wikipedia. I know some have said that solar system didn't have the same sort of consensus that earth, sun and moon did. Well those original terms didn't exactly go through much scrutiny as seen here. Six people talked about it and they decided to use the USGPO style guide because they liked the sound of it better, not really based on evidence. There's more people talking about it here now than it looks like they ever did before. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
An open discussion conducted over two weeks that elicited responses from six people is a lot different from a unilateral decision made without any consultation. And no, I did not just check this. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The difference does not amount to much. Per WP:BRD, the absence of dissent amounts to consent by those active at the page at the time. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
But Silence is the weakest form of consensus. There is a difference. Furthermore, Reaching consensus through editing states: "All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious) – either by clear edit summaries indicating the reason why the change was made, or by discussion on the article talk page. Substantive, informative edit summaries ..." The edit summary provided was: "Celestial bodies: xt and logical ordering" - hardly substantive, informative or clear. I suggest that the description by another editor of this being a "Christmas special" is neither unreasonable nor unjustified and is in stark contrast to the open process applied to earth etc.
Cinderella157 (talk) 11:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, "Christmas special" sums it up neatly. I am just pointing out that the Christmas special was followed by silence, which implies acceptance. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Until it is challenged, at which time it is no longer accepted. Definitely weak. Evensteven (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on the above, I think it is appropriate to ask an uninvolved administrator to close this RfC. The guidance for closing RfCs is expressed at Wikipedia:Closing discussions. The closer has some latitude and may endorse one of the changes suggested above, write their own wording which they think captures the consensus, determine that no consensus exists, or make some other response. SchreiberBike talk 02:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Request made to take place after the close February 16 at 00:16 UTC SchreiberBike talk 02:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. A decision here will have an impact on the discussion of solar system below, so I feel there is some urgency to this. I don't want to ask someone to close it because that could have the appearance of canvasing. Any thoughts on how to get a speedier response? SchreiberBike talk 19:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I just realized that, although there have at least been some suggestions in this discussion that the outcome of this discussion lead to a change in the treatment of "solar system", editors of that page have not been notified. So I put a notice up at Talk:Solar System. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Well there's certainly no consensus yet on that one, so we'll need to take that up later if we want to make the change I suggested; good idea to let them know in any case. Dicklyon (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Straw poll on list length

  • Who supports removing items from the existing list of words: "sun", "earth", "moon", and "solar system"?
  • Who supports adding items (such as "universe" and "galaxy" and possibly more) to the existing list of words?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaxafrad (talk • contribs) 23:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Remove

  1. I would remove "solar system" due to the fact it was added without discussion. Or, if others don't care that much, I would start a discussion on whether or not to continue to include "solar system". Xaxafrad (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. If universe is not added, I would support removing moon, sun and solar system. Not sure about earth. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. I would support removal of "solar system" due to the fact it was added without discussion. I would acknowledge the previous consensus re: earth, moon and sun. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
    With a clearer position on which 'bodies' are and are not capitalised, the paragraph might then be redrafted to reflect this. Universe, galaxy and solar system might then be relegated to a footnote or some other device that makes it clear that these bodies have been considered and excluded from this list specifically, and their omission is not some oversight. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. Remove just solar system, the one that was added wihtout discussion and is least aligned with recommendations of guides (e.g. [9]). Dicklyon (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. If universe is not added or if solar system gets removed, I would support removing moon, sun and solar system. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Add

  1. I support adding universe, but not galaxy. The name of our galaxy is the Milky Way. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
    Actually, if you look at this google books search you will see that many sources include the word "Galaxy" as part of the name of our galaxy. In other words, one name for our galaxy is "Milky Way" ... but another name is "Milky Way Galaxy". Indeed, sometimes the same source will call it both "Milky Way" and "Milky Way Galaxy", depending on context. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    About half the time capitalized and half not, depending on which style they follow. Dicklyon (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not sure of the relevance of those searches. Is the Milky Way ever called "the Galaxy"? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    Often. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. I support adding universe and galaxy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Neither

  1. Another improper formulation here. None of these terms operates in a vacuum, astronomical objects though they be. They are related, and their capitalization (or not) is for related reasons. The reasons must be talked about, not just the words. This is where the entire discussion has been sidetracked onto side issues, and is part of why there is so much contention. It is not that "the reasons" are too complex to talk about, it is that there has been a refusal to focus where the focus of the disagreements is. The whole set of astronomical objects is involved, however this discussion started, and however this question was framed. It all needs examination or there will be no resolution, and (by the way), no consistency. Evensteven (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Agreed with Evensteven. Also, I strongly prefer deciding on the proper style before deciding how to best word it in the MOS. I think the style is the important thing, and the goal of the MOS should be to reflect that. And I very strongly oppose everyone creating new straw polls without discussing them first. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I second everything you added, Ashill. Thanks. Evensteven (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the straw polls are all helpful in adding perspective. They will help in the formulation of any new RfC. The alternative is to go round in circles ad nauseum. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The alternative is to start talking about the real issues. The polls are worthless. Evensteven (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I agree that the straw polls could be useful; I just think that a bit of discussion before starting them would focus the questions better and make them actually useful. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
My opinion on straw polls: they're made of straw, they're weak, non-binding, and impermanent. A straw poll is a rough dipstick to measure how full are the various reservoirs. An RfC on policy should be discussed and worded carefully before publication, but I thought straw polls had a lesser standard. Xaxafrad (talk) 05:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Awaiting closure Cinderella157 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2015 (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.

Amendment to Celestial bodies section - paragraph 2

See box. Formerip (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

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.

The proposal (as amended) has consensus.

Four editors supported the proposal and two were opposed. It should be noted that there were comments querying the detail of the proposal, including from supporters. I have given little weight to the objection that the proposal falsely claimed to represent the status quo because, even if this is so, consensus can change. It was also objected that "the like" is unsatisfactory and vague in guidance wording. I am personally sympathetic to this argument, but I don't think it should present a roadblock to consensus. The better alternative might be to tweak through the normal BRD process.

Incidentally, to those who think "the Milky Way Galaxy" is correct, compare "the Planet Mars".

This close has been amended after a post-close discussion. While there is support for changing the guidance broadly along the lines proposed, there is insufficient clarity around what is meant by a "formal part" of a name and a part which is "used optionally". One example (Milky Way g/Galaxy) was discussed, but there is not consensus as to how it should be handled, and so it remains unclear whether the guidance is workable as it is currently written. Further discussion about this should take place.

There is a clear consensus that the external guidance of the IAU should not be referred to, so the last sentence of paragraph 2 of the section can be removed. It would seem uncontroversial to also remove the first sentence of this paragraph, since it duplicates guidance already present in paragraph 1.


The two paragraphs in this section deal with quite different themes. Paragraph 2 has recently been discussed, particularly with regard to the reference to the IAU. The reference lacks clarity, specificity and context. An attempt to add specificity through a more specific citation only servers to blur what is otherwise a fairly clear distinction between the subjects being considered in each of the two paragraphs.[10] The continued inclusion of the reference to the IAU appears to lack any utility; it is redundant and leads to ambiguity - evidenced in part by the recent edit.

In light of this, it is suggested to remove this reference while otherwise retaining the status quo of the second paragraph. The following replacement for this paragraph is proposed. Specifically, this does not pertain to 'solar system' as this is clearly the subject of the first paragraph. If acceptable, the examples could be fleshed out or modified, colourised etc but in accordance with the examples provided.

In the first instance, the question is whether this requires a formal RfC. To that extent, I am testing the waters. But this can be gauged by how contentious this proposal is perceived to be.

Propose amended paragraph 2

Names of planets, moons, asteroids, comets, stars, constellations and galaxies are capitalized. Where the name consists of two or more words or is hyphenated, each part is capitalized. Where a descriptor (such as 'comet' or 'galaxy') is a formal part of the name, it shall be capitalized but not when it is used optionally. 'The', when part of the name, is not capitalized, except when commencing a sentence or the like. Examples are: 'the Andromeda Galaxy', 'Halley's Comet' and 'the Milky Way galaxy' (since galaxy in the last is not a formal part of the name).

Where proper names of astronomical objects, constellations and the like consist of two or more words or are hyphenated, each part is capitalized. Where a descriptor (such as 'comet' or 'galaxy') is a formal part of the name, it shall be capitalized but not when it is used optionally. 'The', when part of the name, is not capitalized, except when commencing a sentence or the like. Examples are: 'the Andromeda Galaxy', 'Halley's Comet' and 'the Milky Way galaxy' (since galaxy in the last is not a formal part of the name).

Alternative wording Cinderella157 (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Notified of discussion

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy Cinderella157 (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment, Support, Oppose

Support - as proposer. This clarifies the status quo while removing the reference to the IAU, which lacks specificity or clarity and which is, potentially, quite ambiguous. There is little if any utility in the reference as it exists. The relevant instructions from the IAU are not indicated to the reader. A remedy of these deficiencies is likely to prove more problematic given the likely difficulty of finding suitable references that actually clearly support the statement of style being made in this paragraph and utilising them in a construction that gains consensus. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. Clear, consistent with the rest of the MOS, and not overly prescriptive. As the editor who added the citation for the IAU style guide, I'm happy to see us simply make our own style statement, as the proposed text does, without explicit reference to the IAU. I think that as long as we're explicitly basing the style guide on the IAU recommendation, we should say which recommendation we mean. That's all I was trying to do. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 03:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: A possible tweaked first sentence: "Names of planets, moons, stars, constellations, galaxies, and other astronomical objects and groupings are proper names and therefore capitalized." (We can't and don't need to list every possible class of astronomical object whose name is a proper name.) But my support doesn't change whether or not we adopt that tweak. Also, I might make this the first paragraph, as the other paragraph is subsidiary to this one, making explicit whether we consider a few edge cases to be proper names of astronomical objects. In fact, I think that the entire other paragraph could possibly go, though maybe we should get consensus on this much more straightforward proposal before opening that can of worms. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 03:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: I was thinking when it said it was "retaining the status quo" that all that was really happening was to remove the IAU info. That's not the case. It is being changed to remove "Milky Way Galaxy" and turn it into "Milky Way galaxy." NGrams say differently on this subject. I could support it if all it did was remove the IAU reference and make it our own, but this is changing long-standing consensus (9 years I think) to include the generic as part of the name and capitalize it. This major change does not keep the status quo at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Galaxy is appended to Milky Way quite optionally. See [11] The Search shows that galaxy is quite optional. Milky way returns about 10 times more hits than Milky way galaxy. Furthermore, capitalising galaxy occurs only about half of the time. One could hardly claim that it is consistently capitalised. The present MOS:Caps does not support 'Milky Way Galaxy'. Galaxy is omitted from the example of 'Milky Way' that has been given. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
It says right now.. "In the case of compounds with generic terms such as comet and galaxy..., include the generic as part of the name and capitalize it (Halley's Comet is the most famous of the periodic comets; Astronomers describe the Andromeda Galaxy as a spiral galaxy)." That tells me you are dramatically trying to change the way we do things now. Your change is NOT retaining the status quo. That is something that has had consensus for many many years. MOSCAPS is a guideline that has been superceeded by consensus in Celestial Bodies. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Amended - @Fyunck(click) and @talk please note changes along lines of @talk

I don't like the IAU descriptor in there either. If it changes simply to the following, I could support it:
Where proper names of astronomical objects, constellations and the like consist of two or more words or are hyphenated, each part is capitalized. [and either] 1) In the case of compounds with generic terms such as comet and galaxy, include the generic as part of the name and capitalize it (Halley's Comet is the most famous of the periodic comets; Astronomers describe the Andromeda Galaxy as a spiral galaxy)... or 2) Where a descriptor (such as 'comet' or 'galaxy') is a formal part of the name, it shall be capitalized. 'The', when part of the name, is not capitalized, except when commencing a sentence or the like. Examples are: 'the Andromeda Galaxy', 'Halley's Comet' and 'the Orion Nebula.'
This doesn't change the meaning of the original long term consensus, it just removes the offending IAU section. It doesn't add Milky Way Galaxy to the mix on purpose, to keep an open mind as the original did. To add it and actually change it to "Milky Way galaxy", I can't support. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click) You state that you oppose this on the basis that it is contrary to a long standing concensus of the Astronomical Project. Previously you stated:

In looking at it, no discussion was really needed to add it since it had been part of our astronomical guidelines for 9 years and astronomical naming conventions for 11 years. Maybe it simply got plopped in for clarity after an edit war and everyone said duh... and let it stand. That's happened throughout MOS history. A discussion doesn't always happen nor is it always needed. We don't really conform to MOS, MOS conforms to either wikipedia usage or consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The former of the two document you have referred to mentions neither capitals, capitalisation nor the Milky Way. The latter mentions 'Milky Way' four times and in no instance is it succeeded by the word 'galaxy' (either capitalised or not). In the section, 'Capitalisation', it states:

As per the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), where a word such as "Group", "Cluster" or "Star" is part of the object's proper name, this should be capitalised in the article title.

The logical converse is that something not part of the proper name is not capitalised unless there is another reason for doing so. In the section, 'Galaxies', it states:

Note that traditional galaxy names are proper nouns. Therefore, all the words in the galaxy name should begin with capital letters. For example, "Andromeda Galaxy" is acceptable, but "Andromeda galaxy" is not.

The cited document specifically states that if galaxy is 'part' of the name, then it should be capitalised and consistantly uses 'Milky Way' in such a way that makes it clear that 'galaxy' is not part of the name. Specifically, 'the Milky Way' is the proper name and it can be used in the appellative noun phrase, 'the Milky Way galaxy', as an attributive noun phrase that modifies the appellative, 'galaxy' - ie the galaxy that is known as 'the Milky Way'. I would also note that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects) defers to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), defers to MOS:CAPS. You would have MOS:CAPS defer to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects). This is a circular definition! Cinderella157 (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
One could also say "the galaxy that is known as Andromeda." You'll also note those "documents" were brought up in a different conversion. This part with the IAU was actually added by Dicklyon in 2011... so it's been there for 4 years. Look... there are many different opinions on this, that is very clear. What I object to is you casually saying "This clarifies the status quo while removing the reference to the IAU." That is totally untrue and I don't like that type of thing slipping in. Some editors might just read what's below the heading of Amendment to Celestial bodies section - paragraph 2 and assume all you changed was removing the IAU reference and tightened up the wording... and they would be mislead. This changes the meaning of longstanding consensus. In the case of compounds with generic terms such as comet and galaxy (but not star or planet), follow the International Astronomical Union's recommended style and include the generic as part of the name and capitalize it (Halley's Comet is the most famous of the periodic comets; Astronomers describe the Andromeda Galaxy as a spiral galaxy). There has to be an extremely good reason to mess with this consensus structure. You have made a good point about leaving out the IAU part... I can agree with that... this is our own MOS not IAU's. I can support that. But not the banishment of Milky Way Galaxy, which is what your new proposal dictates. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
And per Encyclopedia Britannica, Galaxy is not really used optionally. They have Milky Way with a different meaning. They do give the option of using "the Galaxy" as opposed to "the Milky Way Galaxy." Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Qualified support - I support this in concept, but I am not completely sure what is meant by the phrase "when used optionally". Based on the discussions that we have had, I think it means "when not part of a proper name", however that caviat would not really be clear to someone who has not taken part in these discussions. My support would be stronger if this phrase were better explained (or if a clear example were given). Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Would this change make this clearer?
"Examples are: 'the Andromeda Galaxy', 'Halley's Comet', 'the Milky Way and 'the Milky Way galaxy' (since galaxy in the last is not a formal part of the name but is used optionally)." signed late Cinderella157 (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment "the Milky Way galaxy": but "Galaxy" is part of the formal name, it isn't part of the informal name, which is just "Milky Way". I know this isn't part of the proposed change, but nevertheless, it isn't right. The "Milky Way" is actually the name of the night sky thing that has been seen since antiquity, which the galaxy derives its name from. And "Galaxy" capital-G is also the Milky Way Galaxy. It'd be better just to capitalize all of it. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Sources are about half lowercase; we care less about "formal" than some, per WP:COMMONNAME. And we capitalize less than some, per MOS:CAPS. So why not go with the common name? Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, COMMONNAME does not really apply to "Milky Way galaxy" vs "Milky Way Galaxy"... neither stands out as being used significantly more often than the other. Both are commonly used, so neither is the COMMONNAME. I think this is going to be one of those cases where we simply have to allow both... either one can be used, as long as there is consistency within any given article. Blueboar (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The MOS does not have to do anything. The whole point of a discussion like this is that it has a choice. More specifically it has a choice between requiring one form, permitting one of two or more stated forms, or permitting any random combination of milky/Milky way/Way {galaxy/Galaxy}. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Never mind the (correct) statement that we care less about formal name than some, there is no "formal name" anyway. I don't think the IAU has adopted a formal name (noting that IAU style guides are simply a decision by the IAU's very small staff, not a resolution voted upon by the thousands of IAU members). It's commonly called "the Milky Way", "the Milky Way Galaxy", "the Milky Way galaxy", and "the Galaxy". As far as I'm concerned, all of those forms are synonymous and perfectly acceptable. If we want to make an MOS-level prescription between "Milky Way Galaxy" and "Milky Way galaxy", fine, but I also think it's fine not to worry about it. However, given that "Milky Way Galaxy" is an accepted proper name of the Galaxy, I don't think that the "but not when it is used optionally" wording necessarily says that "Milky Way Galaxy" is wrong. For what it's worth, we capitalize "City" in "New York City" even though it's optional.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this also brings up the larger question: what about celestial bodies is special? The capitalization rules are (and should be) no different for celestial bodies than anything else: capitalize the first letter in each word of every proper name, full stop. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The difference with New York City, is that there are sources (and definitive ones at that) that say that the formal or official name is 'New York City'. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, no... the formal, official name for NYC is "the City of New York". "New York City" is the COMMONNAME. Blueboar (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I incorrectly assumed that was your point. However, the point about sources is relevant. Are there recognised (definitive) sources which say that 'the Milky Way Galaxy' is the formal name, since usage suggest very strongly that the recognised name is 'the Milky Way'. When you say COMMONNAME, are you referring to the WP policy? Cinderella157 (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Once again, there is no formal name. And what makes you say "the Milky Way" is much more common in sources? Remember, any count you do of occurrences would have to separate the name of the galaxy from the name of the diffuse band white light in the sky. Our Milky Way article says (with a citation) that some astronomers consider "the Milky Way" to be the name of the fuzzy feature and "the Milky Way Galaxy" to be the name of the galaxy. (Fyunck noted this above.) So if you ascribe to that view, "galaxy" is definitely not optional. There is no correct answer here; if we prescribe a certain form, we should acknowledge that we're simply making a choice amongst forms that many sources use. That's fine, but we shouldn't pretend that there is any right answer (though there are wrong answers). —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 01:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't get the fuss and 'allegations' that this doesn't represent the status quo See Milky Way - nowhere in the body of text does it use 'the Milky Way Galaxy' or even 'the Milky way galaxy'. I have already given evidence of usage, including usage by the Astronomy Project at astronomical guidelines for 9 years. This page was indicated as being defining. In n-grams, 'Milky Way' appears about 90% of the time without 'galaxy' and then, only half the time is it capitalised. Our own article makes the distinction between the 'observed' feature and the galaxy only in a footnote and one reference. It would appear unlikely to skew results significantly. Again, howis it that this point does not reflect the status quo? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: The original proposal looked harmless, but the amended proposal -- replacing specific object types with vague "astronomical objects, constellations and the like" -- is not. It opens more possibilities for changes by people who decide it applies for whatever term they decide to change. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem was that that the list was overly prescriptive and incomplete (nebulae for example). 'fringe or problematic' names are dealt with in the first paragraph. The problem otherwise, is to make an extensive and comprehensive list. Workable alternatives are welcome for consideration. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I think the real problem is that we are attempting to make a list in the first place. I think ASHill just asked the important question: "what about celestial bodies is special?". Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
The problem is the principle of unnecessary caps in [[[MOS:CAPS]], one interpretation of which is articulated in CMOS and is often advanced as an implicit interpretation of MOS:CAPS. This is done, since MO:CAPS fails to clearly articulate what is meant by this phrase itself. It is a policy which would have part of a proper name not capitalised. This gives rise to a debates such as 'Halley's Comet', which has a recurrent history. The only solution is to clarify the lead of the MOS:CAPS, clarify exceptions or both. Personally, I think the lead needs to be addressed (and the section on proper names). Without this section on celestial bodies, the name of every article on a galaxy, comet or nebula (and others) is likely to be argued over and revisited with regular monotony. Which is fine by me, since I find some of the arguments proposed to be quite amusing. Cinderella157 (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you are reading MOS:CAPS far too strictly. It is not a policy but simply a guideline.. and specifically says to use it with common sense. Wikipedia doesn't want everything under the sun capitalized, and that's fine and dandy. It stops headings like "Player's Who Have Won Multiple Championships" from being created. But when we have bunches of sources that capitalize an item like "Milky Way Galaxy", just because half the sources do and half the sources don't doesn't make the capitalization of Galaxy unnecessary. I'm beginning to think like some others here that we are trying to make this far too restrictive as opposed to a general MOS guideline to help us along. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Well then how much authority do you think the MoS should have? IMO, the MoS is the top guideline/policy/suggestion-essay-page (whatever you want to call it). When editors have disagreements, they throw links to policy pages around, including the MoS. Ambiguous and contradictory policies, guidelines, and essays cause repeated disagreements and redundant discussions. This topic has attracted significant attention from, and been publicized across, many different areas of the Wikipedia project. If the MoS isn't the final destination for deciding on how to capitalize compound parts of vaguely proper names/nouns, then where should we move this discussion? Xaxafrad (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Authority? It is a powerful guideline, not a policy. We use it with common sense. But consensus is everything at Wikipedia. When there is something in MOS that 75% of editors are not following we change MOS not the 75%. MOS is GREAT as a general tool on how to capitalize proper names/nouns, and how to capitalize compounds. It is poor at specifics because different branches of science or particular sports or the theater do things differently, and editors that have passion and knowledge of these things edit those items a lot. Their individual Wikiprojects should have more say in deciding issues. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The final destination is actually at the talk page of each individual article. Guidelines like MOS give us a broad sweep overview of what is normally done. But it's at the talk pages where we determine what should be done in any specific situation. Talk page discussions are where we reach consensus on how to apply our policies and guidelines in specific contexts... where we balance the argument "The MOS says we normally do X" with the counter argument "Yes, but this should be an exception because of Y factor". Blueboar (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Support with suggestion: I think the re-wording is an improvement. I believe the vagueness introduced by the words "astronomical bodies" is clarified in the preceding paragraph, which is not under discussion in this section of this talk page. My suggestion, to improve clarity, is to move the example of "Milky Way galaxy" from the end of the paragraph to after the words "but not when it is used optionally." Xaxafrad (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Where proper names of astronomical objects, constellations and the like consist of two or more words or are hyphenated, each part is capitalized. Where a descriptor (such as 'comet' or 'galaxy') is a formal part of the name, it shall be capitalized but not when it is used optionally (e.g. 'the Milky Way galaxy'). 'The', when part of the name, is not capitalized, except when commencing a sentence or the like. Examples are: 'the Andromeda Galaxy' and 'Halley's Comet'.

STILL PROBLEMATICAL... Here's the root problem: The entire discussion comes down to a disagreement over whether words like g/Galaxy are part of the proper name or not. If you consider "Milky Way Galaxy" to be a proper name, then the G in Galaxy should be capitalized. If you don't, then the g in galaxy should not be capitalized. It's not really "optional" in either case... we just can't agree on which case applies. Blueboar (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be real progress if we can agree that is indeed the problem. There are some who have argued otherwise. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, I see this as a storm in a tea-cup, as the matter appears resolved - see Milky Way. This proposal (and the examples) reflects consensus and the status quo despite allegations to the contrary. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Even at that article Milky Way the two times it is used (heading in the infobox and note number 1) it is "Milky Way Galaxy." So yes, it is indeed resolved per that article... as is Solar System and Universe in that same article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
No, usage of Universe is not resolved in that article, because it is one of the many where universe was changed from universe to Universe last month. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
But there are many Wikipedia articles that use either "Milky Way Galaxy" or "Milky Way galaxy". It's a perfectly valid usage. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no suggestion that "the Milky Way galaxy" is invalid usage. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
You are missing the point... looking at the sources, "the Milky Way Galaxy" is also is a perfectly valid usage. If we have to say anything about g/Galaxy (and I don't think we should) then we need to indicate that both usages are acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe I am missing the point at all. Is "the Milky Way Galaxy" also is a perfectly valid usage? I see one reference to assert that it is. I see a substantial body of evidence through usage to state otherwise. Due weight should be given. Quoting from Due and undue weight:

  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

Cinderella157 (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

While my position is slightly closer to Cinderella's than Blueboars, I actually think you are both missing the point. MOS is a style guide and its purpose is to provide a uniform style across Wikipedia. To achieve that purpose it is perfectly appropriate to make a choice between Milky Way Galaxy and Milky Way galaxy, and it is also appropriate not to (make a choice), and require instead internal consistency in each article. Sources do not play the same role here as they would in determining content of an encyclopaedic article. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure, it is not inappropriate to make a choice between them, but unfortunately we can't reach a consensus on which to choose... and since the sources don't indicate a real world consensus either, it seems even more appropriate to intentionally NOT make that choice. To leave the choice up to editors at the article level. Sometimes you have to accept that we simply can't adopt a uniform style across all Wikipedia articles, and that intentionally not trying to impose one is actually the best option. Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that statement. But I do not agree that just because the sources are evenly split (assuming that to be the case) there is no basis on which to make such a choice. My own preference, for what it is worth is Milky Way galaxy, because I do not think of "galaxy" to be part of the name. But that is a personal choice, and I prefer Milky Way Galaxy to leaving it open. If we cannot agree on which to choose, a conscious decision to leave it to local editors is better than no decision at all, but for me this is a poor third. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the strongest opposition was to Cinderella157's statement that the proposed new wording represents the status quo. It plainly doesn't: it makes a choice as to how to capitalize "Milky Way galaxy". That's fine, but if that's what we're doing, we should acknowledge such. Cinderella157, you claim to find only one source that supports "Milky Way Galaxy". Google finds legions (Dicklyon argued above that it's about half and half), and there's a very reliable one cited in the opening sentence of Milky Way. I have a preference for "Milky Way Galaxy" over "Milky Way galaxy", since I think that when one says "milky way galaxy", the full phrase is being used as the proper name. I can't think of any other proper name with a common noun at the end where the common noun is lower case. "New York City", "Manhattan Island", "Mississippi River", all of which can be and often are referred to without the common name. This comes back to my refrain: what is different about astronomical proper names than any other proper names? As far as I can tell, none of the editors who support "Milky Way galaxy", "universe", or "solar system" have addressed that question.
But I don't care much about this distinction, which is why I supported Cinderella157's initial proposal in this section and would probably support most anything we settle on for this paragraph. Personally, when I'm writing, I most often use either "the Milky Way" or "the Galaxy". —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 18:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there's a significant difference between astronomical proper names and non-astronomical. But who says any kind of proper name is easy to define? There doesn't seem to be any kind of majority opinion for most of the proper names under discussion. Maybe we should say we can't decide here, and remove the section on "Celestial Bodies" entirely (and if that's a sound course of action, I'd be worried about how much of the MoS could be gutted by that logic). Xaxafrad (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
@ASHill I think you hit the nail on the head with '... when I'm writing, I most often use ... "the Milky Way" ...'. I would do the same because I consider the name of our galaxy to be Milky Way. I would not write "Milky Way Galaxy", for exactly the same reason. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the proposal, I see some minor disagreement with how to define the scope of the proposed paragraph. Mainly, this is the difference between being prescriptive and specific in detail or applying the scope in more general terms that (hopefully) still define the scope with reasonable certainty. I do not perceive any issue with the wording of the directions, but rather, with the examples and specifically with the examples regarding Milky Way. Does removing the example of Milky Way from the proposal resolve whether 'Milky Way Galaxy' is correct? No, such usage would still be subject to scrutiny under MOS:Caps. It is just taking the problem from one place and putting it somewhere else.

I have stated that the proposal represents the status quo. The Milky Way is just one of many aspects that make up the status quo. With regard to Milky Way, I believe it is reasonable to say so on the basis of the article title and usage in the article. I stated that: "I see one reference to assert that ... 'the Milky Way Galaxy' ... is a perfectly valid usage." This reference is cited in the Milky Way article. I see no other reference cited that makes this specific assertion. I would appreciate being accurately quoted. Yes, there are many references using Milky Way Galaxy, but roughly an equal number use lower case for galaxy. MOS:CAPS states: "words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." Wiktionary offers the definition: "(frequency) constantly; always; or, (manner) in a consistent manner, where consistent is, of a regularly occurring, dependable nature." While I do not propose the intent of MOS:Caps to mean 100% of the time, it should certainly be much closer to this than say, half the time. Based on the evidence of usage, 'the Milky Way Galaxy' does not meet the threshold of consistency required by the MOS:Caps to be considered a proper name. Furthermore, of the total usage referring to 'the Milky Way', it is referred to as 'the Milky Way Galaxy' only about 5% of the time. There is no comparison of this with "New York City", "Manhattan Island" or "Mississippi River". In the former case, this is the name of the WP article and it is reasonable to presume (in the first instance) that the editors have diligently applied the principles of the MOS in arriving at this title. Capitalisation of 'river' and 'island' in these contexts is consistent with well documented conventions of English. I see no strength of argument to substantiate the 'the Milky Way Galaxy' is a proper name or that galaxy is used with 'Milky Way' in anything but an optional context. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@ASHill, You said: "... I think that when one says "Milky Way galaxy" [capital letters added], the full phrase is being used as the proper name. I can't think of any other proper name with a common noun at the end where the common noun is lower case." The whole noun phrase in this case is not a proper name but an attributive noun ('Milky Way'), modifying an appellative noun ('galaxy'). In this way, the appellative has a specific referent, just as if the definite article had been used in 'the dog' or the possessive, in 'Jack's dog'. It is like saying: "the galaxy called the Milky Way". 'London bus' is another example of a proper name being used as an attributive noun. 'The London commuter belt' was an example in the MOS:Caps until Kwami pointed out that 'London' wasn't actually an adjective (as claimed) and edited it out [12]. With some little thought, there are lots of examples similar to "Milky Way galaxy". Cinderella157 (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Question: Does the opposition to the capitalization of "Galaxy" only apply to Milky Way Galaxy... or do you also object to how we present the names of other galaxies, such as the Andromeda Galaxy, the Whirlpool Galaxy or the Sombrero Galaxy? surely these are proper names? Blueboar (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
On the basis that 'galaxy' (or any other descriptor - eg nebulae) is an intrinsic and inseparable part of the name, (as I presume the case to be in the examples you gave), this descriptor would be capitalised as part of the name. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
OK... I am glad we agree that if the word "Galaxy"" should be considered part of the galaxy's name when it comes to these other galaxies... but I still don't understand why the same does not apply to "Milky Way Galaxy"... why isn't "Galaxy" considered part of the name when it comes to the Milky Way. Blueboar (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Simply, galaxy in this case is not an intrinsic or inseparable part of the name but something of an adjunct. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
You haven't named a single example that's comparable. "Jack's" and "London bus" are inarguably common nouns, and "London commuter belt" probably is. Whether you like it or not, "Milky Way Galaxy" is used as the proper name of the galaxy; "Jack's dog" isn't used as the name of the dog. To me, "Milky Way Galaxy" is better usage than "Milky Way galaxy" (though both are commonly used, so I consider both acceptable usage) because it is a proper name. But anyway, where are we? It seems pretty clear to me that no consensus on pretty much anything has come out of all these discussions (Universe, Milky Way, Solar System), so do we just let it die? Or is there some path to improving the MOS? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the difference with, for example, the Andromeda Galaxy is that "Milky Way" is already sufficient to unambiguously identify it. This means that whereas "Galaxy" is necessarily added to "Andromeda" to make the proper name of the galaxy, this is not the case with the "Milky Way". --JorisvS (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, but I have to disagree with your last statement... I think the word Galaxy actually is necessarily added to "Milky Way" - when referring to the entire galaxy, and not just the part of it that is visible from Earth. To put this another way ... I see a clear conceptual distinction between the "Milky Way" and the "Milky Way Galaxy". The "Milky Way" (without the word "galaxy") refers to a swath of stars that, when viewed from Earth, effectively forms a giant constellation that stretches across the night sky. This "constellation" is not identical to the entire Milky Way Galaxy - since not all the stars in the galaxy are visible in the constellation known as the "Milky Way" (what we see as the Milky Way is actually just one part of one spiral arm of the far larger Milky Way Galaxy). Blueboar (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica makes that same distinction. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Well I think Galaxy and Milky Way are both proper names. I've never eaten an Andromeda. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep current Cinderella157 (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment Interesting to note that this is a similar same issue as the RfC Talk:Cypress Hills massacre#RfC: Article title posted below. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 13:46, 13 March 2015 (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.

Follow-up discussion after closing

Just a comment on the closer's remarks... I am concerned that the closer has not taken into account how our opinions changed and evolved over the course of the discussion. For example, my own initial !vote was somewhat supportive, but my opinion evolved as the above discussion took place. I ended up being more on the opposed side. I don't think that evolution was reflected in the closer's "!vote tally". I realize that the closure is based on more than just counting !votes... but I still question whether it accurately reflects the discussion. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. So, can we come to a consensus version of this without needing an uninvolved admin to interpret the consensus for us (though I do appreciate FormerIP's efforts)? I feel like we're close enough that this should be manageable. To my reading, the basic simplification of the paragraph and the removal of the reference to the IAU style guide by Cinderella157 has good support. The contentious bit is specifying "Milky Way galaxy". Does that need to be included at all? Here's a starting point which includes the parts that I think are uncontroversial; feel free to hack away at it (doing this here instead of live on the guideline page, although the closing admin did suggest going straight to BRD). If we can settle on this, then maybe we can separately decide on whether and how to include Milky Way G/galaxy.
I note that these rules are (I think) no different from the rules for any other proper name, so it may be redundant. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 17:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Where proper names of astronomical objects and other astronomical entities consist of two or more words or are hyphenated, each part is capitalized. Where a descriptor (such as 'comet' or 'galaxy') is a part of the proper name, it shall be capitalized. 'The', when part of the name, is not capitalized, except when commencing a sentence or the like. Examples are: 'Alpha Centauri', 'the Andromeda Galaxy', 'Halley's Comet', 'Comet Hale–Bopp', and 'the Milky Way'.

Not sure about Halley's Comet. The others seem uncontroversial. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Try again for "Universe/universe" consensus?

Given the now-closed RfC, is there any appetite for attempting to find a way for closure, or should we (by default) let this lie with no conclusion? Should we follow the closing admin's advice to formulate a new RfC with clear opposing choices? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

There was some discussion about this here. So far nobody seems hopeful that it would be more likely to succeed than the last one -- which, after all, originally was an RfC with clear opposing choices. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 01:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually that's not true. The closer said it failed because "It immediately assumes everyone agrees that there's consensus to change something and codify it into the page, and that by participating in it, your duty is to only choose one of two changes." Those two choices were flawed from the beginning and the closer said we'll need to make more choices that include the alternative proposals. It would need to have the choice of keeping it "as is" also since many felt there was no need for additional refinement. Leaving it lie may be the best choice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
What I said was true. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
It is, with the benefit of hindsight, not true that the original RfC had clear opposing choices. In fact, in the discussion in formulating the RfC (which I had not seen before your link above), at least one editor noted that the proposed RfC didn't present a yes or no choice with no valid other options. This became clear in the ensuing discussion, which made it clear that there were many valid answers other than "choice 1" or "choice 2", as I think the closing admin articulated well. Instead, it tried to answer at least three different questions simultaneously: 1) Should we prescribe a capitalization of "universe" at the MoS level or leave it to individual article talk pages? 2) Should the word "universe" be treated as a proper name when used as the name of the universe we live in, or should "universe" always be treated as a common noun? 3) How should the answer to question 2 be worded in the MoS? To me, the path towards consensus is to answer those questions sequentially, not simultaneously. (Perhaps questions 1 and 2 could be combined — I think there may well be a quick consensus that it should be specified at the MoS level, though that is not a universal view.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 01:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I observe:

  1. That there was no concensus to capitalise 'universe in the context indicated. By default, it should not be capitalised.
  2. That the options of the RfC, while not phrased as yes/no, were nonetheless phrased as converse options - despite, what I can only perceive as 'fuzzy logic' applied to argue otherwise. The statement offered by ASHill: 'Should the word "universe" be treated as a proper name when used as the name of the universe we live in, or should "universe" always be treated as a common noun?', paraphrases the two options offered.
  3. Widespread edits had affected many articles. It was not reasonable to leave the issue to individual pages.
  4. The issue of 'universe' is directly related to the MOS section on celestial bodies. The contentious nature of the issue, the widespread edits bringing this matter to MOSCaps and directly relevent section in MOS Caps somewhat predetermine the answers to these questions.
  5. Widening options, with multiple combinations from that which was narrowly confined to the specific matter of 'universe' is even less likely to provide a clear outcome.

Cinderella157 (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting. My observation would be quite different:
  1. There was no consensus to add anything to the context indicated. By default it should be handled case by case or by individual WikiProjects. The Astronomy Project has already worked it out to their satisfaction.
  2. The options given in the RfC were poor from the outset as was explained before the RfC was listed. The logic of forcing editors to choose between only two poor choices without an option of "none of the above" or taking the whole "earth, sun, moon, solar system, galaxy, universe" sentence under consideration was logically unsound from the beginning.
  3. Since the Astronomy project already had consensus on capitalizing Universe in certain instances, it could have remained uncapitalized in non-astronomical articles. But this RfC was trying to encompass everything.
  4. MOS is already leaning towards "too specific" as a general guideline and simply can't encompass every WikiProject's or subject matter's needs. That's why we have to use common sense in applying it.
  5. Widening options, especially an option in which nothing is changed, or perhaps an option removing the entire listing (except earth) could possibly give a better indication on where to find common ground. As it was editors felt hogtied into the lesser of two evils.

The fact that Cinderella and I see even our "observations" so differently is indicative why the closer wrote that this thing was a mess. I don't mean that meanly...heck Democrats and Republicans can look at the same item and one will see disaster and the other a celebration. It's just the way it is sometimes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

1. The statement "The Astronomy Project has already worked it out to their satisfaction"ais a good illustration that we have a problem with an aggressive and arrogant Wiki Project.
2. It is false to contend that editors were "forced to choose" -- the ones who wanted to discuss something else were perfectly free to start their own topics, but instead chose to sabotage a well-formed RfC by stuffing in irrelevant choices and confusing the closer.
3. It is false to contend that this RfC was what was trying to encompass everything, it was Wiki Project Astronomy which was editing articles far beyond their purview (I am reverting a few of the most despicable examples but expect to get reverted eventually).
4. It is expectable that claims of "common sense" will pop up whenever MoS is not being followed.
5. It is unbelievable that when we cannot agree on a particular point we should expand and add more points that we might disagree on. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
And again we see still another observation of the "fundamentally malformed" RfC. It's good people seeing things from a different perspective. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, though I agree with the substance of Tetra quark's massive-scale changes from "universe" to "Universe", I'm going through and undoing a number of them as a gesture of good faith, since those January 2015 changes clearly did not reflect consensus. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


What I see is that some of those participating in the discussion think that the status quo is worse than either of the two RfC options, while others prefer the status quo. The wording of the RfC assumed implicitly a clear majority for the former view, but I'm not convinced there was one. How many of us agree with each of the following two theses? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
That can be gathered by simply looking at the previous RfC. I don't think we need another discussion on that. Otherwise you could have simply asked those who wanted original choice 2 "would you want choice 1 or leave it alone" and vice-versa if you originally wanted choice 1. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't one of the options simply "Universe" if referring to the one and only and "universe" when in the context of a multiverse or fictional universe? Which is then precisely simply a matter of correctly identifying which are proper names/nouns and which common nouns and follow the rule to capitalize proper nouns/names. What could be a 'better option'? --JorisvS (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not a proper name. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
That's your view, but there is no consensus for that statement. Frankly, since you've called an entire project arrogant, I'll go ahead and use the same word to describe your unwillingness to acknowledge that there is reasonable disagreement on this. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Peter, please explain, working from the definitions at proper noun, why it wouldn't be a proper name. --JorisvS (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Ashill, yes it's my view and the repetition that all we have to do is agree to capitalize when it's a proper name is a sign of the contempt that Wiki Project Astronomy members hold for other views. JorisvS: read again, I only used the term "proper name". Then read what WP:MOSCAP says about how to determine what's a proper name, and read the RfC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
WP:MOSCAP says, correctly, that "Proper names of specific places ... are capitalized in accordance with standard usage", which is quite right. The "Universe" refers to the one specific entity (and is thus a proper name by definition) , which just happens to contain everything we know. --JorisvS (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
(ec) I can't speak for the whole project (Lord knows it doesn't speak with any unanimity), but I'm pretty sure that I never said anything like "all we have to do is agree to capitalize". I've said, quite consistently I think, that all we have to do is agree whether to capitalize. Big difference.
WP:MOSCAP says "Proper names of specific places, persons, terms, etc. are capitalized in accordance with standard usage". When the Universe is used as the name of the specific universe we live in, it, to me, very clearly fits that definition. If the universe we live in were named "Fred", there would be none of this debate anywhere: "The universe we live in is Fred." But we use "the universe" or "the Universe" as the name of our universe, so it should, IMO, be "The universe we live in is the Universe". But I recognize that many editors and other sources don't capitalize in accordance with that practice, so we simply have to choose which usage we use. Then we have to decide whether and how this should be worded in the MoS. It seems like a very simple point to me, which is probably why I sound like a broken record on it. What I'm infuriated with now is the unwillingness of the community here to simply agree to answer those simple questions. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: "Then we have to decide whether and how this should be worded in the MoS" Given our lack of consensus, I think the key question is "whether" this should be worded in the MOS... We don't have to make a rule. We can remain silent on the question of how to capitalize the word. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, to quantify the !votes (with all the WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and other salt shakers with which this should be taken, especially that a majority does not necessarily "win"), the following editors have, based on my reading, expressed a clear preference for "universe" to be treated as a proper name in some cases in the RfC on this page or (those with *) in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 16 discussion or (***) in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 14 (17 total, 8 in the RfC):
  • Fyunck, Dondervogel 2, Modest Genius, JonRichfield, Jimp, ashill, Tetra quark*, JorisvS, Blueboar, StringTheory11*, Bhny*, Huntster*, Reyk*, sroc***, DeistCosmos***, Shem***, kwami***
The following editors have expressed a clear preference for "universe" to always be treated as a common noun or to always be lowercase (** only at Universe and User Talk:Peter Gulutzan) (17 total, 12 in the RfC):
  • Peter Gulutzan, Dicklyon, Jordgette, Deor, SPACKlick, Tony, AgnostickAphid, SchreiberBike, Isambard Kingdom, Xaxafrad, WarKosign, Cinderella157, User:SarahTehCat**, John Carter***, Arianewiki1***, Evensteven***, Drbogdan***
The following editors expressed a preference to "adhere to existing guidelines" (2 total; 0 in the RfC):
  • Gronk Oz*, Drbogdan*
The following editors have stated that a clear choice between "universe" and "Universe" is better than making no choice between them:
  • Dondervogel 2, Ashill, SchreiberBike
If there are inaccuracies in this list, others are welcome to edit it, or if others feel that including this list is counterproductive, others are welcome to delete the entire comment. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
ASHill: unsurprisingly you inflate your side and deflate the other side: (a) if you had bothered to read the earlier discussions you would have seen references to several Wikipedia talk pages where multiple editors, whom you don't mention, came to a consensus for 'universe'; (b) the people who actually "voted" i.e. stated clearly for choice 1 or choice 2 voted strongly for universe, even in spite of the heckling by the pro-Universe side; (c) you include Tetra Quark but apparently forget that every Tetra Quark edit, where Tetra Quark changed universe to Universe, erased the opinion of an original editor who wrote universe -- about 100, but Tetra Quark's edit summaries are sometimes unclear so it's hard to be sure. Actually administrator John estimated 1000 in all, making 1000 innocent slobs who thought they had a right to an opinion until your project decided they don't. We have established from sources that 'universe' is the norm so it's no surprise that your side is a small minority. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I was simply trying to quantify the recent discussion as best as I could capture it from editors who explicitly stated an unambiguous opinion; if any editor in my list didn't express an unambiguous opinion, please remove that name. I'll go ahead and incorporate any editors who expressed an opinion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 14, the immediate predecessor to the RfC. But again, the only point in quantifying !votes is to see if the !votes strongly favor one side or the other. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 19:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you ever feel like addressing any of the objections, they'll be waiting. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, fine. a) Of the 8 discussions you pointed to in the initial discussion on WT:MOSCAPS/Archive 14, 5 (by my reading) actually seem to favor "Universe". b) As has been discussed at length, many editors had issues with the RfC formulation, which is why I read both of the in-depth, recent discussions to find underlying preferences for "Universe" or "universe", proposed MOS wording aside. c) I was trying to quantify the clearly-expressed preferences from the recent discussions in a methodologically-simple way. My reading of Tetra quark's opinion is based on his express statements in the discussion, not the editing history. And even if one were to try to divine the number of editors over the years who have expressed a preference through their editing, 1000 articles certainly does not mean 1000 different editors; a handful of astronomy editors have done much of the work on a large number of astronomy articles, as is the case in many subject areas on Wikipedia. e) I'm unclear how 17/34 (or 8/20 if you consider only the RfC) is a "small minority". But once again, I'm just trying to summarize the current discussion to see if there's anything like a clear preference; there certainly doesn't appear to be. I find it helpful and thought others might; if you don't, feel free to ignore it, but then please don't make statements like "most of the editors who participated in the recent RfC "voted" that universe should not be capitalized". I even offered others the opportunity to delete the list if you think it's counterproductive; that offer stands. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 02:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
With (a) you skipped about a dozen pro-universe editors, with (b) you denigrated the only important count (which I see you don't like me repeating) that "most of the editors who participated in the recent RfC "voted" that universe should not be capitalized", with (c) my count of one thousand is too high but your count of zero is too low. Thanks for the kind offer to delete, but if I did then somebody might get the false impression that I took this counting seriously. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
And of course "if" MOS is messed with, the most important thing for me is that universe gets treated the same as moon, sun, solar system and galaxy. They can all be used in similar situations whether you want to call them proper nouns, proper names or whatever. I'm not sure we need another go at this right away but if we did my own musings would probably be to have done this in steps. Of course I have the benefit of hindsight and seeing so many sources brought to light. First I would have laid out a summary of where sources tend to lie on the whole Celestial Bodies section, both generally and astronomically. Then I would have asked for a choice of do we want to change MOS or leave it as is. I would make sure editors realized that changing MOS could wind up eliminating words like sun and moon, adding words like galaxy and universe, or some combination therein.
If it was 50/50 or more for no change, we'd be done. If it looked like 70% wanted to change MOS we'd move on with another step. Maybe something like shall we just keep earth and remove the rest as a lot of general sources do, shall we add galaxy and universe for more uniformity as many astronomical sources do, or shall we go through it piecemeal discussing each term (old and new) to see where consensus lies on earth, moon, sun, solar system, galaxy and universe, plus capitalization of second terms such as in Halley's Comet, Andromeda Galaxy and Milky Way Galaxy. And then step by step after that. That would be more of a funneling effect on ideas rather than starting with an end result. Anyway, after going through the last RfC, and again having the benefit of hindsight, that's how I might start a new process if a new process is required. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


The status quo is better than either of the two options presented in the RfC

agree

disagree

  1. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  2.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  14:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Cinderella157 (talk)
  4. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs)

Either of the two options presented in the RfC would have been better than the status quo

Don't get this - how is it not the converse of the first option and consequently confusing. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The statement seems clear to me, and I have explained in my reply to SchreiberBike (below) how it differs from the previous question. Whether you choose to make your position clear by replying to it is up to you. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Notice also that Fyunck(click) disagrees with the second statement and has not yet expressed a view on the first. This suggests the possibility that he neither agrees nor disagrees with the first, but I would not presume to conclude that without clarification from him. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I too answered one statement but didn't bother with the other, because I do see these questions as redundant. I guess I'll add myself to the first question to be completely unambiguous. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 13:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

agree

  1. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC) (but see below)
  3. Isn't this the same as the question immediately above but phrased differently?  SchreiberBike | ⌨  14:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC) [No, this is not the same question. For example, if an editor felt that the status quo was equally good (or bad) as either of the two RfC options, that editor would disagree with both theses. I do not agree with deleting. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)]
    Yes. Delete this section? (If someone does that, feel free to copy my agree here to disagree above.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

disagree

  1. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The status quo is not good, but neither were the two options presented in the RFC... we need to start over and look for a third alternative

agree

  1. Blueboar (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC) (partially. I think we can do better than either of the two options. I also think the questions weren't asked in a way that could lead efficiently to consensus.)
  3. I recognize that some people were not satisfied with the two options and I think that we might be able to come up with better ones.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  14:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. I don't think the status quo is ideal. Either the MoS should clarify how to capitalize 'universe' (or not), or it should tell people to decide on individual article talk pages. Xaxafrad (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

disagree

  1. Disagree strongly. There is nothing wrong with agreeing to capitalise or agreeing not to. It's just a convention. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

The question is in two parts and two choices to satisfy four combinations doesn't make sense. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It makes sense to me. To agree with the statement as a whole you need to agree with both parts. I agree with the first part and disagree with the second. That is why I disagree with the statement as a whole. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The result of the RfC is that there is no consensus to capitalise ' universe'. The converse of this is that ' universe' should not be capitalised. Option 2 of the old RfC was a way of recording this. The question is, how do we now record this. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You keep saying this, but it isn't true. That is not the converse. There is also no consensus to stop "Universe" from being used. Just because things aren't on this list of examples does not mean anything. It keeps it as the Astronomy Project would want or simply case by case consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
From the MOS: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Cinderella157 (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
And community consensus is up in the air. It's use is neither banned nor approved from the examples given. Case by case is the usual way unless a project has a ruling on it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
There was specifically no consensus to capitalise. That part of things is not up in the air. There is no consensus that it is a proper noun in any context. Therefore, if there is no cocencus it is a proper noun (IAW MOS caps), it should not be capitalised. If there is disagreement on this, then perhaps we need to go back and seek clarification on what the closing actually means. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I would say there is no consensus to capitalize and no consensus not to. That just about sums up the problem with the status quo. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Which is why I think, if we do another RfC, we need to agree upon (in advance) a procedure for simply making a decision one way or the other on whether "universe" can ever be a proper name if no consensus forms. Once we make that decision, I think we can come to a true consensus on how to word the MoS. Without that decision, there are simply too many options to come to a consensus. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
First we need to see if there is consensus as to whether the MOS should specify the capitalization of the word 'universe', or remain silent on it. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
This is true. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
No consensus for a statement that it should be capitalised, means that it should not be capitalised. There is no consensus to show it is a proper noun; therefore it should not be capitalised IAW MOS:Caps. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
There is consensus at WP:Astronomy to capitalize. That consensus can be overridden by WP:MOS if there is consensus to do so, but that consensus here is lacking. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Cinderella, I have to agree with Dondervogel... given that there is a consensus at the project page to capitalize... I think we have to take the result here at MOS as more of an indication that there is "no consensus against capitalization" (ie there is no consensus to overturn what the project says.) Blueboar (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The closer stated that there was no consensus for option 1, being: "The words universe, sun, earth, moon and solar system are capitalized (as proper names) when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body ..." This option was to capitalise universe as a proper name in an astronomical context. Without a consensus, it should not be capitalised. The matter was both bought to MOS:Caps as a result of discussion elsewhere and is relevant herein because of the section on celestial bodies. As I stated before, "If there is disagreement on this, then perhaps we need to go back and seek clarification on what the closing actually means." @User:slakr Cinderella157 (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus to add universe to the list of examples in MOS... this is true. There was also no consensus for the other items in which one said "The words sun, earth, moon and solar system are capitalized (as proper names but not universe) when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body." So no consensus to permanently ban the capitalization of universe against the Astronomy Project's consensus. Astronomical terms are very fluid these days, there are professors not talking to one another just because Pluto was demoted. We need to cut the Astronomy Project some leeway to handle these items, but still make sure any nutballs are stopped from overstepping their bounds. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – I think that fishing again for what to say is going to continue to show the kind of split we saw before. I think it might be useful to look at actual cases instead; find articles where the capitalization of universe is in question, or was recently changed, and let's talk about those. If we decide what to do, it may become more clear what to say to describe those decisions. Dicklyon (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

A new idea

For universe I prefer lower case based on my reading of the MoS, but I don't care that much. For me, reaching some kind of resolution is more important than which way the resolution goes. Many people have expressed their views and there is now no consensus and I don't think one will emerge. I propose a new method of problem solving. I propose that we come up with alternatives for how the MoS could be changed, then let the choice be determined randomly.

For example, it could be the Powerball number, the red number on the right in the set of six numbers at this link. It can be any number from 1 to 35. The choice could be indicated by odd or even numbers, ranges of numbers, or whatever. I chose this lottery because I played it once, but any lottery would be as good.

I suspect some will see this as stupid, but I see a need for new ways to solve problems in Wikipedia. Is there any merit to this approach?  SchreiberBike | ⌨  06:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I am sure that there are those that would cry foul in some form or another if the result didn't go their way. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not as worried about those crying foul about the current result as I would be to set some precedent other than wiki established consensus. What happens a year from now when some of these coin-flip decisions get challenged by editors and all we can say is "consensus by powerball." I can't deny that at times I've seen discussions where a coin-flip would be the best solution. Does wiki policy or guidelines say anything about this type of decision making? I'm wondering what other administrators think. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
FWIW I did just happen upon this old discussion on coin flipping. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I would propose an RfC on the following statement.

The word 'universe' shall be capitalized (as a proper name) when used in an astronomical context to refer specifically to the body that is everything that physically exists.

Perhaps some may wish to tweak the wording slightly. The wording closely follows that of para 1 of the Celestial bodies section. The options are simply to support the statement or to not support it. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: I think that's the right question to ask if we ask this question. I suggest a slight tweak, since the word "universe" is sometimes used to refer to the Universe without being used as the proper name of this particular universe. (And there's a sentence in which the capitalization actually does matter for the meaning!) So a tweaked proposed statement:
The word 'universe' shall be capitalized (as a proper name) when used in an astronomical context as the name of the body that is everything that physically exists.
—Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
My position is very similar to that of SchreiberBike. We need a mechanism to force a decision and right at the start I proposed a simple majority vote to do just that. I think Cinderella is probably correct though in arguing that those who did not like the outcome would not accept it, so I am not arguing for this approach now. Instead I propose that we establish a consensus for a statement along the lines of "almost anything would be better than the status quo". If we establish that consensus first, we increase the likelihood that a closing admin would choose one of the two (or more) options for a specific change. That is why I posed the two (similarly worded) theses comparing the status quo with the two previous RfC options. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Which is why I suggested above that we do it in steps to funnel us in the right direction, starting with "do we want to change MOS?" Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
A lottery is not a good way to amend the MoS. It should be based on substance, not chance. --JorisvS (talk) 09:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that SchreiberBike's approach is about right since there are two valid choices, each of which has substantial support, no evidence that either side is convinced by the other's arguments, and no clear compromise available (since either "u" is capitalized or it isn't). However, as Blueboar has noted above, there isn't even clear consensus that we should make a Wikipedia-wide choice for the capitalization of "universe". So I think it's best to settle that question first (which I hope can be done quickly). So the order of operations I see is
  1. Decide whether to make a decision whether to capitalize universe (probably through a new, simply-worded, yes or no RfC).
  2. If the consensus on #1 is no, we're done. If #1 is yes, decide one way or the other. I think that all the arguments have been made and neither side has convinced the other, but I think most (including me) would be happy to have a pre-agreed process for determining the outcome. SchreiberBike's random number idea is as good as any. We could do a straight vote, but it's hard to see what a reasonable voting population is. This has been discussed enough that I'm not sure a more-narrowly-worded RfC on this is useful since we're suffering from RfC fatigue amongst the marginally-interested editors.
  3. Decide on the wording in the MoS (including whether existing rules already cover whichever decision we come to).
Does this process make sense? —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the process makes sense. The first part could be a simple yes/no question... "Should the MOS include the word 'universe' as an example, or not?" Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Slightly more neutrally worded to not prejudge outcomes of #2 and #3: "Should the MOS specify whether the word "universe" is ever treated as a proper name?" —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Answer is yes - see 'Miss Universe'. Rephrase question in correct context. Cinderella157 (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
"Should the MOS specify whether the word "universe" is treated as a proper name when used as the name of the universe live in?" —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 15:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Hold on... context is an issue for question #2... question #1 is far simpler... we need to find out if there is consensus on whether the MOS should mention the word "universe" in the first place... Let's see if there is consensus for that basic question before we worry about anything else. Blueboar (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
That's what I'm trying to do, hence the word "whether" in my proposed wording. I just thought that your wording could be misinterpreted to say that "universe" should be added to the list of words that should or should not be capitalized, which is obviously not the issue here. Or what about, to satisfy Cinderella157, "Should the MOS specify whether the word "universe" is ever treated as a proper name in an astronomical context?" —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 15:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Blueboar is correct. Quite simply, Because of queries about universe and galaxy, Do we want to change the MoS Celestial Bodies sentence "The words sun, earth, moon and solar system are capitalized (as proper names) when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body (The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System; The Moon orbits Earth)."? Yes or No. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Well... Fyunk's question is almost my question ... but not quite. To be honest, I would be very tempted to answer Fyunk's question with: "Yes, we should change it" ... however, my reason for saying "yes" isn't because I want to add the word universe (or galaxy) to it. My reason for saying "yes" would be that I actually think we should trim the section even further (or possibly cut it entirely). In other words, I am in favor of change, but I favor a very different form of change than those who want to add universe and galaxy.
However, I also realize that the idea of trimming further would involve a new level of complexity that (again) takes us beyond the current discussion. So... again... let's keep the first question bluntly simple... "Should the section mention the word 'universe' or omit it?" Blueboar (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
That's EXACTLY why I wrote it like that @Blueboar:. I might have said yes also to my own question for the exact same reason of removing items. If it turned out to be "yes, we need to change it" then question number two would be: 2. Shall we just keep earth and remove the rest as a lot of general sources do, shall we add galaxy and universe for more uniformity as many astronomical sources do, or shall we go through it piecemeal discussing each term (old and new) to see where consensus lies on earth, moon, sun, solar system, galaxy and universe? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
This is SchreiberBike writing as an IP because I'm at a public computer. How does this question sound? It doesn't say anything about any specific sentence, but asks the question I think we need to answer first. "Should the Manual of Style specify the capitalization of the word universe when used in an astronomical context?" 68.15.209.23 (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
No consensus can be reached on how to put it in there, so not putting it in there is really the only option available, AFAICS. --JorisvS (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The question that was bought here in the first instance was simply whether or not is should be capitalised in context. It was bought here because of controversy and because of the scope of the issue. It is possible to assess this based on 'strength of argument' and the criteria established by MOS:Caps - that it is consistently capitalised by sources in this context. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem with that analysis is what that logic does to the rest of the sentence. If we could somehow agree that consistently means 90% or more of the time, then we must (lest we become hypocrites) also remove earth, sun, moon, and solar system from the list because all those terms have plenty of sources that keep them always lower case. I can certainly live with the list being completely removed, though I would rather keep earth capitalized when used in conjunction with other capitalized celestial bodies. Talking of Mars, earth and Venus just doesn't seem right to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
This is still going on? Fantastic!! I reiterate, Universe is a place. If something's going on in our Universe, capitalize it just as you would capitalize for something going on in Ulan Bator. End of story. Blessings!! Pandeist (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Cinderella157 just posted a new RfC asking about the capitalization of universe. I found this RFC counterproductive at this stage and thus took the unusual step of removing it (less than 10 minutes after it was posted here, when I happened to check my watch list, and before there were any responses). There were a number of other discussions going on about the best question to ask next, and this unilateral RfC circumvented that process. In particular, multiple editors don't think that this should be specified in the MOS at all and said that we should make that decision first. There's also the parallel approach suggested by SchreiberBike. And a big issue is what we do with the conclusion of any future RfC. For the last one, SchreiberBike did a good job of setting a closing plan; I see no evidence of such a plan here. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 03:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I support Ashill's unusual step of removing Cinderella157's new RfC. If this is going to go forward in a useful way, we need to go at it slowly and with consensus. I hope to see further discussion of what our next step should be, then for us to gather around a consensus how that should be done, and then take the step. That may be maddeningly slow, but I don't think moving faster will move us forward. Respectfully,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The RfC has asked the underpinnig question that has initiated the discussion here way back when. Contrary to the statement made by Ashill, it does not propose any change to the MOS. It simply asks the pertinent question. The reasons given by Ashill are incorrect. Quite frankly, this discussion appears to be going around in circles without anybody actually prepared to do something about it. The RfC wsas a valid step.Cinderella157 (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC) The previous closure appeared to state that there was no consensus to capitalise 'universe' and that most opposed the capitalisation of this. I say 'appears', since there is dissent on what the closure actually means. The question of capitalising 'universe' or not is primary to all of the other issues that might arise if there is consensus on the matter. There is no point on agreeing to change the MOSCAPS if there is subsequently no clear indication of what could or should be changed. The RfC I have initiated lends focus and direction to the ongoing discussion - something which appears to be lacking. As for closure, I propose the same as for the previous - closure by an uninvolved administrator after 14 days. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I find the new rehash exceedingly disruptive. If it isn't removed I'll start another slower step-by-step RfC. This one is just going to have the same things introduced as the last one... that's a lot of copying and pasting to bring new readers up to speed considering we just went through this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

A new RfC

If Cinderella157's RfC is disruptive (ie. moving too fast), what wording would you suggest instead, Fyunck(click)? Xaxafrad (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not a question of "IF"... it IS disruptive and I will be bringing it to an administrator's attention. As for what I would add... it's already been listed several times @Xaxafrad:. You must have missed it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
You said: "I suggested above that we do it in steps to funnel us in the right direction, starting with 'do we want to change MOS?'"
I thought a change to the MoS was needed to avoid disruptive capitalization editing, and to avoid many duplicate discussions on article talk pages. So I would support your first question. Xaxafrad (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
It's certainly not required since the Astronomy Project has already said to capitalize it in certain circumstances. Of course some nutball went and started changing way more than was allowed but that happens from time to time at wikipedia and they usually get stomped on. We were talking about how we would frame such a proposal when this new RfC suddenly appeared. I don't want you mislead...It should also be noted that a support for MoS change in my question might also lead to removal of earth, sun, moon, or solar system... or the addition of galaxy and universe. It was supposed to be a step by step process to slowly whittle things down. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The current RfC approaches this problem from a different perspective. It addresses the substantive question that was bought to MOSCAPS talk but it does not propose a change to MOSCAPS, as has been made explicit in #Background. @User:Dicklyon, there are those that would dispute the outcome of the previous closing wrt this question and no clarification is forthcoming. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed RfC on whether to include in MOS

Per the discussion above (#A new idea), I propose the following RfC. I think this should be done somewhat urgently, before the outcome of the RfC on the preference for "Universe" or "universe" is clear, because it should have been done first anyway and because I don't want the be (in reality or appearance) sour grapes from the "losers" or the "Universe/universe" discussion. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 13:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed RfC content

Question: Should the Manual of Style specify the capitalization of the word universe when used in an astronomical context?

Background: There has been extended discussion of this issue since December 2014 at Talk:Universe, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 16, and WT:MOSCAPS. There has also been discussion dating back at least a decade, summarized at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 14. This question does not address whether "universe" should ever be treated as a proper name but instead focuses on whether the Manual of Style should specify whether "universe" is a proper name. After this RfC is complete, if the consensus is that the Manual of Style should specify the capitalization of "universe", there will be separate discussions of 2) whether "universe" should be capitalized and 3) how this should be worded in the Manual of Style.

Subsections: "Responses", "Other options", "Comments"

Discussion

RFC regarding capitalization in a title

Please see: Talk:Cypress Hills massacre#RfC: Article title Lots of edit warring back and forth on this one. I have filed a simultaneous WP:RM request, to gain wider audience... and to prevent editors from arguing that the RFC is "out of process". Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of edit IAW Admin closure - #Amendment to Celestial bodies section - paragraph 2

Following this discussion, I am revising the close I made above. This discussion is now closed. Further comments are welcome, but should be made in a new section. Formerip (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

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.

Closure of discussion at #Amendment to Celestial bodies section - paragraph 2 was made by User:FormerIP

Edits IAW closure were reverted to original by User:Blueboar at [13].

@User:FormerIP, These actions appear to be precipitous. This matter is addressed to you as closing admin. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

User:FormerIP What the heck was closed? This was an informal discussion that went nowhere. There were more than just two questioning this. And the "status quo" part was a fabrication. The removal of the IAU part had consensus in this "informal proposal" but the Galaxy part was not status quo and is extremely contensious from the last official RfC. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Please clarify your statement regarding: "contensious from the last official RfC". The last RfC, #Capitalization of universe - request for comment, had absolutely nothing to do with the second paragraph nor with 'galaxy' in the context addressed in paragraph 2. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Cinderella157 (talk)
I too am very unclear why this was closed, and (as a mostly-supporter of the proposal) think that the closure misrepresented consensus. I don't like that Cinderella157 posted a request for closure without notifying the participants in the discussion. (I didn't know that there was any intent to close the discussion until the closing admin did so.) And the closing admin noted that consensus can change: of course, but that doesn't mean it did. By my reading, only the proposer really supports "Milky Way galaxy" as a prescribed format. (FWIW, I have to override my autocorrect to write that weird style!) I think there's compromise to be had here, but I've seen no willingness to head that way from the proposer. The closing admin may be right that this can be done with te regular BRD process, though. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 11:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, it now occurs to me that it's unclear why this wntire discussion is here instead of WT:AST. Unlike the Universe, these words are used almost entirely in astronomcial articles, so why not defer to the project? I don't think theres any issue there. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 12:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
MOS defer to a project? Heresy!
OK, to be serious... that's actually a very good question - what is the justification for NOT deferring to the project? Why not simply replace the entire celestial bodies section with a simple note to "see WP:AST"? Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
It is appropriate to discuss matters of style / capitalization on a manual of style / capitalization talk page. The idea of deferring to Wiki Project Astronomy is perhaps more popular among Wiki Project Astronomy members than in the general public. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Sure... but it is also perfectly appropriate for us to decide to deffer matters of style / captialization that really only affect the articles under one project to that project. Repeating that it is appropriate to discuss it here does not really answer the question of why we shouldn't defer to there. I have yet to see a good rational against deferment. (Oh... and for the record... I am not a member of the Astromomy project.) Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
That type of thing is done all the time at the Tennis Project where there are separate guidelines for notability, flags, spelling. etc... Several other project guidelines and needs were being hampered by MOS guidelines, so MOS was consensus'd out and eventually was changed by widespread use. But astronomy project members certainly can't go around changing articles that have nothing to do with astronomy. They don't get carte blanch. But within their topic they are usually the most in tune with astronomy issues. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
With the exception of the string of way-over-the-top edits made by Tetra quark, over-interpreting the consensus at WT:AST, is this something astronomy project members have done much of? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I have no idea, and didn't mean to suggest they were. I just wanted to say that they shouldn't. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Saying "with the exception of [Tetra Quark edits]" is like the old query "Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?" Wiki Project Astronomy encouraged them, didn't monitor or try to correct them, and didn't volunteer to clean them all up. (I've done some reverts but it's daunting due to the huge number and the huge delay.) And we've seen that Wiki Project Astronomy members are determined to force their views through despite the objections of the majority as informed by precedent on WP:MOSCAPS. I marvel at the chutzpah of a Wiki Project Astronomy member now suggesting that they deserve more power. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. This was closed because a request for closure was made at WP:ANRFC. The discussion had been running for a few weeks and appeared to have wound down, so it was appropriate to close it, even if some editors would have been happier for it not to have been, and even though it was not an RfC. I agree that it would have been better for @Cinderella157: to have notified the discussion that the request had been made. However, it's not compulsory, so, in itself, it doesn't give me a reason to reconsider the close.

I'll be willing to look again at the discussion, but you'll have to be patient because it is Mother's Day here in the UK. I'm not promising anything, though, because the most obvious thing to note is that there was more support for the proposal than opposition to it. It's true that there were reservations about the wording, but it is not clear to me why these cannot simply be ironed out post-close. I would say to @Blueboar: that the correct thing to do with a close you disagree with is to challenge it by raising your concerns with the closer and/or starting a thread about it at WP:AN. Just trying to block its implementation is likely to cause unnecessary confusion and aggravation.

I'll post again when I have looked back at the discussion. In the meantime, since participation in the discussion was relatively low, those involved might want to consider whether starting a proper RfC either on the same proposal or on the details they consider to be unresolved might be the best way forward. Thanks. Formerip (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I am one of the two editors who said "Oppose" but FormerIP appears to have acted properly and deserves more thanks than brickbats. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for responding FormerIP... and thanks for being willing to review your own closure. The part of your comment directed to me is accepted and understood. Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I see... this closure of a conversation was asked for. Then FormerIP is not to blame at all and I apologize. It was a sneaky thing to do by Cinderella157 and that tactic was less than helpful. I feel it has no weight on the galaxy/Galaxy issue at all and I would have reverted it as did Blueboar. The whole proposal was untruthful from the beginning. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

FormerIP has also noted that my request for closure was not inappropriate and I did so to confirm that a consensus had been reached - as confirmed by FormerIP. I also note that certain notifications were made in regard to this matter and persons were at liberty to to make further notifications. I note that FormerIP's comment re BDR referred to the phrase 'and like': ""the like" is unsatisfactory and vague in guidance wording. I am personally sympathetic to this argument, but I don't think it should present a roadblock to consensus. The better alternative might be to tweak through the normal BRD process." Furthermore, FormerIP made a specific comment regarding the matter of galaxy, when being used optionally: "Incidentally, to those who think "the Milky Way Galaxy" is correct, compare 'the Planet Mars'." The initial prescriptive list was changed to 'and like', as it was seen to be overly prescriptive and at risk of omission. In response to the objection raised by Peter Gulutzan,I responded as follows:

The problem was that that the list was overly prescriptive and incomplete (nebulae for example). 'fringe or problematic' names are dealt with in the first paragraph. The problem otherwise, is to make an extensive and comprehensive list. Workable alternatives are welcome for consideration. The problem was that that the list was overly prescriptive and incomplete (nebulae for example). 'Fringe or problematic' names are dealt with in the first paragraph. The problem otherwise, is to make an extensive and comprehensive list. Workable alternatives are welcome for consideration.

I noted no alternatives were proposed to address this particular issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean by alternative. I said I would support your actual premiss "remove this <IAU> reference while otherwise retaining the status quo of the second paragraph". On first read through I expected to do just that until I realized the status quo part was a lie. Instead you tried to force through the galaxy change which was not status quo at all. The alternative to this conversational proposal was to stick with the status quo but remove the IAU reference. Then I gave a formal alternative:
  • "If it changes simply to the following, I could support it:
  • Where proper names of astronomical objects, constellations and the like consist of two or more words or are hyphenated, each part is capitalized. [and either] 1) In the case of compounds with generic terms such as comet and galaxy, include the generic as part of the name and capitalize it (Halley's Comet is the most famous of the periodic comets; Astronomers describe the Andromeda Galaxy as a spiral galaxy)... or 2) Where a descriptor (such as 'comet' or 'galaxy') is a formal part of the name, it shall be capitalized. 'The', when part of the name, is not capitalized, except when commencing a sentence or the like. Examples are: 'the Andromeda Galaxy', 'Halley's Comet' and 'the Orion Nebula.'
  • This doesn't change the meaning of the original long term consensus, it just removes the offending IAU section. It doesn't add Milky Way Galaxy to the mix on purpose, to keep an open mind as the original did."
But again the whole proposal was based on something that was not the truth, and that is unfair. As I said, on first read-through it looked good to me. I had no problem keeping the status quo but removing the IAU part. The IAU reasoning could (and should) be kept to the talk page, not the actual MOS. But then I noticed it was not the status quo and pointed it out to you. At that point you should have fixed the error to make it in line with the status quo. A certain amount of trust is expected with an informal proposal or an RfC or a requested move, etc... If someone says A, B and C are unchanged and all we are tweaking is D, most people tend to focus on D assuming A, B and C are just fine. Now I have to scrutinize your suggestions in their entirety, thinking maybe there's a hidden agenda stuffed in the back corners. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It is quite plain what is meant by 'alternative', since the context is quite clear - referring to 'and like'. My statement regarding the status quo was made in good faith and I have explained the basis for my asserting same. How the proposal related specifically to 'Milky Way' was made quite plain: "and 'the Milky Way galaxy' (since galaxy in the last is not a formal part of the name)." I consider an allegation of willful deception to be both uncivil and a personal attack. @Fyunck(click) you have made such statements herein on more than one occasion. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Depending on the source it IS a formal part of the name of Milky Way Galaxy since Milky Way can have a different meaning. It can be ommitted just like I see at times for Andromeda. Heck sometimes ours is simply called "the Galaxy". Call it unwillful or mistaken deception, but you didn't fix it either. You plopped it up in this particular edit and an hour and 20 minutes later I told you of the error. When I brought it to your attention it should have been corrected since readers would be misled... certainly it could have been a mistake on your part. It wasn't corrected. Instead I got the response "Galaxy is omitted from the example of 'Milky Way' that has been given." At that point I'm thinking maybe it was done on purpose. But in good faith I made my alternative that matched the status quo you worded yourself "remove this reference while otherwise retaining the status quo of the second paragraph." Again no change from your original error. So now I'm at the point that I don't trust your original motive for inserting the change and modifying the status quo while telling us the status quo has not changed. Give me reason to believe otherwise. I'd like to. Go back and strike the offending words from the proposal now so that we can move on to remove the IAU stuff as you say you intended. That part we can agree on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Important request: If you want to propose removing the explicit reference to the IAU, please ping the members of WP:ASTRONOMY. Whatever we may decide here on this talk page, we can not claim to have a proper community consensus unless the members of the projects that are directly affected also agree to it. A few editors at a MOS page should not try to "over rule" an existing consensus of a WikiProject... especially a large WikiProject like WP:ASTRONOMY. We need to work with the wikiprojects, not against them. Not involving projects in MOS discussions simply causes discord and argument, and is disruptive. Blueboar (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
If you look, a notification was made to the Astronomy project. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've looked again at the discussion, and I've also taken into account some of the comments made since the close. It still seems to me that there was consensus for the proposal, albeit with reservations over wording, as noted in the original close. I'm also not in any doubt that there is consensus in the discussion about the central point of the proposal: that the guidance should not refer to the IAU and that the question of capitalising generic nouns such as "comet", "galaxy" and so on should turn on whether the noun is or isn't an "intrinsic part of the name". However, this is problematic in a way that I didn't appreciate at the time I made the close, which I think partly explains the controversy.

In the discussion, @Blueboar: supported the proposal, but then seems to be wavering, particularly towards the end, and it was this user who reverted implementation of the consensus, even though they had been in favour of the proposal. The objection doesn't seem to be to the operating principle, but to its applicability in the examples given, particularly in the case of "Milky Way galaxy". Apparently, some astronomers distinguish between the Milky Way as an object in the night sky and the Milky Way G/galaxy, which is a thing somewhere out in space consisting of more than we can see from Earth. Or something like that. I'm not sure whether I agree that this means we need to add an extra capital letter, but I can appreciate the reasoning. Another example given is "Halley's Comet". I'm tempted to say that "comet" here is an intrinsic part of the name but (here is what I see as the fundamental problem) I don't see why the case is any different to the Milky Way example. How do I decide what's intrinsic? It was observed in the discussion that case-by-case COMMONNAME is not a very satisfactory way to do style, because it can give inconsistent results and doesn't really help in cases where they is not a clear winner. Or are we headed for talkpage discussions for each individual case? Seems to me that ought to be avoided.

I'm leaning towards saying that there is consensus in favour of the proposal but that it is not workable as currently written. The practical upshot of this might be that the first and last sentences of paragraph two can be removed (the first should be uncontroversial, because it is just duplication; the last because there is consensus not to defer to the IAU) and there should be continuing discussions about what the rule should be, probably leading to an RfC. A bonus for those not satisfied with the recent discussion is that consensus can change, so the continuing discussions can reach totally different conclusions if they want to.


I haven't necessarily finished thinking about it, though, so I'd first ask for comments as to whether any of this makes sense and how you would feel about that as a close. Formerip (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the further thoughts, which I think make sense. As I said above (#Follow-up discussion after closing), I think there's clear consensus on the proposed wording, excluding the "but not when it is used optionally" subordinate clause, so I suggest that we go ahead and put that into the MOS. I think that wording simplifies and clarifies the existing wording without changing any meaning and thus doesn't require as clear a consensus as a change that does change the existing meaning. (Posting a separate discussion up there may have unnecessarily fragmented discussion. I was trying to keep the substance discussion separate from the process discussion, but they're obviously linked.)
As for a formal RfC on this, I lean against it. I don't think this is that significant a change, I do think there's consensus on most of the changes, and I think we're suffering from MOSCAPS RfC fatigue amongst editors who edit astronomy articles; I think it makes more sense to focus our broad appeals on questions on which an RfC is most likely to make progress on changes with widespread impact.
I note that "Halley's Comet" is already in the MOS:CELESTIALBODIES list. "Halley's" is not a name of the comet, so I don't think there's any ambiguity there even if we do use "but not when it is used optionally" formulation. It's Rikers Island, not Rikers island. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that I can go along with what both FormerIP and Ashill have just said, at least in broad concept... but I would have to see the specific wording.
Of course, my real preference would be to simply cut the entire section, as being unnecessary instruction creep. Everything the section says is covered under the more general "Capitalize proper names" instruction, so I don't see why it is needed. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Specific proposed wording is above. I do agree that all of this is basic application of the standard proper names rule. But I think that about "Universe" as well, and interpretations obviously differ, hence the arguable need for explicit instructions. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure that the interpretations of the guideline differ... everyone agrees that we should capitalize proper names. The disagreement seems to be more over definitions... specifically, what constitutes a proper name. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Two quick comments.
I'm not saying anyone thinks differently, but my goal here is to arrive at a tidy close. I do feel that further discussion is needed , but I don't want to end up facilitating it. Not everything needs to be resolved in order for me to feel the job is done.
I think the idea that what we're talking about is just clarifying the default MOS position is probably a misconception. No general rules is actually given, but by analogy to what is there, we would get, for example, Halley's comet. Which would be acceptable, but I don't get the impression it is what everyone wants. It's a similar thing to issues around how to capitalise breeds of animal. Formerip (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The MOS version that was before was to leave certain things open to interpretation and the proposal was to leave the status quo but remove the offending bit on the IAU. Rewriting is not in the spirit of a discussion but more on the scale of a full blown RfC. Halley's Comet is the proper name, not Halley's comet. It's also called Comet Halley just as we have Comet Hale–Bopp. The last move request was a snowball oppose so that shouldn't be touched. I don't see why Milky Way or Milky Way Galaxy should be added at all. We could have put in hundreds of other choices like Orion Nebula or the Snowflake Cluster instead. There's a reason encyclopedia's such as Encyclopedia Britannica capitalize those types of things and specifically Milky Milky Way Galaxy. There is no doubt that in common usage the word Galaxy is often left off but when it is appended it is usually capitalized. The thing is we all know it's controversial and we all know that MOS gives us some examples but not every example. Just because it's missing doesn't make it banished for some reason. It would be like the original framers of the US Bill of Rights feared, that because there were only 10 listed, some idiots were going think that's all the rights you get. While I have no problem with just "Milky Way" being added (though I would rather it not) I would want to make sure that just because it says "Milky Way" that "Milky Way Galaxy" is also correct. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Usage in Milky Way is quite informative. I would suggest a page search. The distinction between the galaxy and the observed feature is made 'in passing' in a footnote. Fyunck(click) also cited Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects). Usage therein is also informative. Some would claim that 'Milky Way Galaxy' is a proper name. When 'galaxy' is used in the name, it is not consistently capitalised - the basis under the MOS:Caps to be considered a proper name. I acknowledge that using 'and like' is a conundrum. The issue is whether to make a prescriptive list that risks omission or to use a descriptive style. After some discussion, the proposal was changed to the latter. This was done, when it was realised that the original proposed list was incomplete. No alternative was proposed despite a specific invitation to address this. A formal RfC was put up as an option from the start but at no time, was there a move to this option. Notifications were made regarding the proposal. The question I would put is whether renewing the process would elicit new material of sufficient strength to alter the consensus, since consensus in WP is determined by strength of argument, not on numbers. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It is certainly true that the Milky Way article doesn't choose to use the "Milky Way G/galaxy" formulation, but that doesn't mean it's invalid. I don't see any mention of "Milky Way G/galaxy" in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects), so I'm not sure how it's informative. In fact, since Milky Way is so much more common, I'm not sure why we need to specify a capitalization for "Milky Way Galaxy" in the MOS. Why not use the proposed modified version of your language that keeps the part that (I think) have consensus and drops the contentious-yet-not-terribly-commonly-relevant part (noting that I see no editors other than Cinderella157 who expressed a preference to prescribe "Milky Way galaxy")? —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 02:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I support "Milky Way galaxy". I've just been too busy to read through and join this discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
At this point, I think it highly unlikely that we are going to reach a consensus on "Milky Way g/Galaxy"... so, may I suggest that we omit it, and focus on what we can (or at least might) be able to reach a consensus on - rather than endlessly arguing about things where we can't reach a consensus? Blueboar (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
That is probably spot on with how this discussion should be handled. Just leave it out as it always has been and deal with what we can agree on, like the IAU stuff. We already have Halley's Comet and the Andromeda Galaxy as examples... so how many more examples do we really need? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, so unless there are any last minute objections or issues, I'm planning to amend the close in the way I suggested above, in the near future. Formerip (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Just the same concerns I've had since this discussion was started. That it was written with a false pretense. And if that wording were removed I might have said yes to the change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Formerip, I did not find the explanation particularly clear So perhaps you might be more explicit - how will the statement now look. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Basically, I am proposing to change the close to say that there was consensus for your proposal, but that it does not appear workable the way it is worded, because a lack of clarity around the concepts of a "formal part" of a name and part of a name being "optional". There also doesn't appear to be a consensus around how to resolve this, so further discussion will be needed. In the meantime, there is a clear consensus not to refer to external guidance, so the last sentence of paragraph two can be deleted. Formerip (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
That assessment looks fair to me. Thanks. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 22:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Formerip,'Optional' was directly contrasted in the proposal by 'formal'. Together, they formed an essential part of the proposal. The Astronomy project tends to favour the specialist style of the IAU, which tends to 'over capitalise' and is in direct conflict with the MOS:Caps, which instructs to 'avoid unnecessary use of capitals'. This closely paraphrases CMOS. Without clarification or further guidance in MOS:Caps as to what this means, many would look to CMOS for clarification. CMOS would have 'descriptor' or 'generic' components of a proper name lowercased as unnecessary to capitalise. Consequently, by extrapolation, this leads to Halley's comet etc. The proposal was to recognise capitalisation of a descriptor when it is a formal, essential or necessary part of the name. The reference to optional, nonessential unnecessary use of a descriptor, is itself an essential part of the proposal necessary to limit the scope of the proposal. The matters are not just confined to the Astronomy project. They have spilt over into the wider WP and have been quite disruptive (as will be seen by other discussions on this talk page). Is the use of 'optional' contentious? I note one editor that suggested that it 'might' be unclear. It was certainly clarified by the example of 'Milky Way' - this is the contentious issue. Is there a strength of argument that 'Milky Way Galaxy' is the formal name and 'galaxy' should be capitalised? If not, the MOS:Caps instructs that it should not be capitalised. The sources and even usage in WP do not indicate that it is consistently capitalised or even generally considered part of the name. Removing the example does not resolve the contention since MOS:Caps requires evidence for capitalisation, not the other way around. Your own comments regarding 'the Planet Mars' were quite germain. If it is your intent to amend the closing such that the scope of the proposal shall become ambiguous, the I would intend to withdraw the proposal and foreshadow an RfC addressing the proposal. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: I think participants in the discussion were unclear about what an "optional" part of a name is in this context. I am certainly unsure, and I think most people reading your proposed guidance will be. Distinguishing between what is an "optional" part of a name and what is simply not part of the name seems to me to be obviously problematic, and no uncontentious examples have been discussed which might illuminate the question. It may be that this can be sorted out by further discussion, but for present purposes it is too late.
Although it is not the main reason why I think the proposal should not be implemented as is, it should also be noted that it is a proposal which may throw up unintended results. Would "great Orion Nebula" be correct, given that "great" appears to be optional? You seem not to support "Halley's comet" but, given that it is also known as 1P/Halley, isn't "comet" an optional part?
It may be that an RfC will be necessary in order to resolve things for the best. I would suggest, though, that further discussion prior to that is likely to be beneficial, because what I am seeing is not simply something where the existence or absence of a consensus is yet to be established, but something where there are thorny issues that have not yet been thoroughly discussed. Formerip (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
'Commet' is not optional in the name 'Halley's Commet' (one does not say just 'Halley's') nor is 'great' a descriptor such as 'commet or galaxy', though 'nebula' is. As I read the discussion, one concern was raised that it might be unclear. The dissent was not with the wording but with the example of 'Milky Way galaxy'. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
It may be that your proposal will work fine so long as it is interpreted in the correct way. But how to do this is what is not clear at present. I think the acid test is this: can you think of an example, other than Milky Way g/Galaxy, where is is possible to identify a word that is indisputably part of the name but is merely an optional part, and so should not be capitalised? If you can't, then perhaps it would be simpler to say "capitalise only words that are part of the name". If you can, then perhaps you have found a good starting point for further discussion. Formerip (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
If you want to formally expurgate the use of "Milky Way Galaxy" or "Halley's Comet" on Wikipedia in favor of "Milky Way galaxy" and "Halley's comet" then perhaps an RfC is the best way to go about it. I don't know why it's so important for you to change this spelling and I don't happen to agree with having an RfC on it, but in the scope of the controversy, if you demand a change then I think that's the best forum for things to be discussed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), I said no such thing wrt "Halley's comet"! Although, there is no consistent use to support "Milky Way Galaxy". Cinderella157 (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Nor is there consistent use for "Milky Way galaxy." Actually if appended it's usually "Galaxy" as Encyclopedia Britannica does with Milky Way Galaxy and Andromeda Galaxy. But no matter, an RfC is the place for those changes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
You would agree then that it is 'appended' quite optionally? Though you do appear to have a strange perception of 'usually' given the n-grams data that you cited. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Informally, of course it is. I think most people tend to say "Milky Way" instead of "Milky Way Galaxy." I think most cut it down even further and tend to say simply "The Galaxy." It would be like always using the "Commonwealth of Massachusetts" when everyone calls it simply Massachusetts. And bringing up perception is mighty odd when looking at your obtuse perception of status quo. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

In the main discussion, Ashill listed this search [14] for WP articles containg "Milky Way Galxy". Looking at the text returned for the first 20 articles, five used "Milky Way Galaxy", four did not use "Milky Way g/Galaxy" in the text and eleven used "Milky Way galaxy". Cinderella157 (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Cinderella157 (talk)

Numbers can be funny things. Since 1960 "Milky Way Galaxy" is starting to dominate "Milky Way galaxy" according to Google Books. I'd leave it out of the list of examples, or at worst use just "Milky Way" as an an example with G/galaxy option open to the Astronomy Project. MOS simply can't list every single example that agrees or disagrees with it. That's why it says to use common sense and why we have Wikiprojects. But again, an RfC is the place to make those changes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that this statement is somewhat misleading (to say "starting to dominate"). Others have suggested the usage is about equal. It is certainly not predominantly used as "Milky Way Galaxy". The arguments have been made and their strengths are plain to see. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I also found the word "Sun" capitalized in the following excerpt from the transcript of the Academic Listening Encounters audio for Chapter 1 of the "The Natural World" book, titled "The Physical Earth"--Fandelasketchup (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC):
MAN: Look at the diagram in your book. It shows some of the planets in our solar system. All of the planets in our solar system move around the Sun. Find the Sun in your diagram. Color the Sun yellow. Pause...--Fandelasketchup (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
See? The author of the book, Yoneko Kanaoka, of Japanese descent, chose to capitalize Sun in order to show the star's importance to our solar system. Also, as stated in the narrator's introduction to the exercise excerpted above, whenever one hears the word "pause" one has to stop the recording and follow the instructions given, which in the case of the excerpt are to find the Sun in the diagram on page 3 of the book and color it yellow.--Fandelasketchup (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to box of this discussion now and modify the close above. Formerip (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2015 (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.

Dot the i vs. Dot the I in a film title.

Please see Talk:Dot the i#‎Requested move 17 March 2015. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters/Archive_16&oldid=1152602188"