[WikiEN-l] A plea for sanity in capitalisation from the coalface

Sun Apr 27 12:56:31 UTC 2003

Mav writes: many of the links to the bird/mammal articles will be from
articles that "highlight some thing other than the creature in
question. In those articles it is most correct to have "bald eagle" in
the running text of the article and not "Bald Eagle".

I agree entirely. We should only use "Bald Eagle" where the aim is to
specify a particular exact species - i.e., the Bald Eagle as opposed
to, say, the Golden Eagle or a Spotted Harrier. In general, that will
nearly always be within the context of a fauna entry.

Mav suggests the following compromise: Have the bird and mammal
articles follow the capitalization convention deemed appropriate by the
specialists and enthusiasts working on them BUT a down style redirect
MUST be pointed to the up style article title.

This makes excellent sense and I agree wholeheartedly.

Mav writes: what is needed is to make redirects far less ugly than they
are now. People seem to get real pissy when they follow a term they
know and use only to get a result that in effect screams "the method
you are using to access this page is depreciated".

Yes. There is *absolutely* *nothing* wrong with redirects, they are a
really useful, indeed essential part of the 'pedia. But people do tend
to think that there is something "wrong" with using a redirect. How
about we change the "Redirected from XXXX" display font so that it is
in smaller letters? I'm sure that there are more advanced and elegant
solutions around (Mav offers some in his post), but that on its own
would help quite a lot. Also, we should sprinkle a few more "there is
nothing wrong with a redirect" statements around the place. In the
welcome pages, the FAQs, wherever.

Mav writes: So if specialists will allow down style links to their
articles I can live with those articles following the up style and
other conventions deemed appropriate

I have no problem with that. I don't think anyone else will either.

------------------

The place where we *will* have problems is demarkation. At what point
do we draw the line between the "specialist" entries and the "general"
entries? This is a potential breeding ground for edit wars. 

If we can discuss this in advance and work out a policy *before* we run
into disputes, then the disputes need not happen. 

My suggestion is that we should start from the idea that if the
intention of the article is to single out that *particular* *species*
as opposed some *other* species, then capitalisation is correct. 

On its own, that's not quite enough to make a workabe guideline, so
let's work some examples.

First, consider the case of the bald eagle as the symbol of the United
States. If that is coming from an entry about the President of the USA,
it should normally be down style. (I can think of some unlikely
hypothetical exceptions, but they are just that: unlikely and
hypothetical.) 

Now, what about a more difficult example: Mav's case of an article on
the US parks system that mentions the bald eagle. Seems to me that if
we are talking in generalities, then "bald eagle" is correct. If, on
the other hand, we are talking about specific species in a context
where exact identifiication of that species matters - say, the parks
service having to decide if they should prioritise scarce financial
resources to the preservation of either the Bald Eagle or the Golden
Eagle - then correct capitalisation to distinguish between the species
is appropriate. Here is a rule of thumb to help decide: if you could
sensibly replace "bald eagle" in the sentence with "Haliaeetus
leucocephalus" and not have it seem horribly out of place, then you
should capitalise. If "Haliaeetus leucocephalus" is clearly
inappropriate, then you should *not* capitalise.

My thanks again to Mav for a handsome compromise offer. I think this
one will fly.

Tony Wilson
(Tannin)