This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.
Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Capitalization guidelines


Our current capitalization in article titles and text is pretty inconsistent, which partly stems from various games using various conventions for it. So we have "giant ant" but "Giant radscorpion". I propose the following system - capital names for article titles (e.g. Giant ant, Giant radscorpion) for in-game items, characters and creatures, but non-capitalized names used in article text (e.g. "The super mutant wears a leather jacket and wields a combat shotgun", not "The Super Mutant wears a Leather Jacket and wields a Combat Shotgun". Of course there should be redirects from non-capitalized names to capitalized ones. What do you think? Ausir(talk) 16:11, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer to decapitalize article names. No particular reason, except for versimilitude - for me, decapitalized article names make the stuff seem more real. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 16:16, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Funny you bring it up, I was thinking about it when converting the VB docs as well :) I agree with Ausir in general. However, proper nouns should remain capitalized in the article text in my opinion - e.g. location names, titles of notes and books or the names of unique weapons and armor (Lag Bolt's Combat Armor, Terrible Shotgun). There are also a couple of "grey" areas; e.g. super mutant should be lower-case, but what about Super Mutant Behemoths? Combat armor should be lower case, but what about Ranger Battle Armor? Just a few that come to mind.
Another issue that comes to mind is that the link auto-complete (which a lot of people use) always suggests article titles; even if these are lower-case, the first letter will always be upper-case when inserted this way. It's not a problem if the whole link is capitalized but if it's supposed to be lower-case, it is. Just to bring it up as something to consider.
Regarding article titles, I'm pretty much neutral on this. On the one hand, some people will not get the difference between articles whose titles should be capitalized due to being proper nouns (if we decide to go with a lower-case approach) - on the other hand it alleviates the problem with the auto-complete somewhat. However, switching to a lower-case article naming will necessitate a massive number of page moves. -- Porter21 (talk) 19:27, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I forgot to mention proper names being capitalized. I'd say that super mutant behemoth etc. should be lowercase. As for the armor, maybe Ranger battle armor, with the Rangers being part of a proper name? And while I'd capitalize Terrible Shotgun, I'm not sure if Lag Bolt's combat armor wouldn't look better for me, since it's pretty much a descriptive name. Ausir(talk) 19:36, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Ausir. Unique names remain capitalized, as do seemingly common names that refer to unqiue places (e.g. the White House as opposed to a white house). Same thing on the C&C wiki, well, mostly. Personally, I thing article titles are good capitalized, but in the text they should be decapitalized as they'd be on Wikipedia.
So, my take is... Ranger battle armour (since Rangers are an actual organization name), Talon Company combat armour, Sunbeam laser rifle, Gauss rifle etc. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 23:08, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Well, I've been thinking about this quite a bit and the brilliant conclusion is: I don't know. Somehow "super mutant behemoth" looks weird to me. Things like "Lag Bolt's Combat Armor" and "Ranger Battle Armor" are much the same as "White House" for me - common terms which refer to a unique subject.
I do think that whatever capitalization rules we decide on should carry over to the article titles as well. The practice of capitalizing the article title doesn't really fit with not capitalizing section headlines, plus we'll either get a huge amount of links pointing to redirects instead of the article proper or we'll make our lifes harder by having to use [[Combat Armor|combat armor]] instead of simply [[combat armor]]. Plus, as already mentioned, the link auto-complete always brings up article titles.
Looking at other RPG wikis, pretty much all of them decapitalize common items and "races" (like "super mutant" in our example). However, specific types of creatures are usually capitalized ("a dremora" vs "Dremora Lord", "a geth" vs "Geth Trooper", "a dryad" vs "Celebrian Dryad" - have fun guessing which wikis I was looking at ;)). Using Tag's examples, using this scheme would result in "Ranger Battle Armor", "Talon Company Combat Armor", "Sunbeam Laser Rifle" and "Gauss rifle" (only the latter is generic term, the others are specific versions of a common archetype). -- Porter21 (talk) 15:50, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, definitely not "gauss rifle", since the weapon is named for Carl Gauss, just like with Tesla armor. And I don't really see much of a difference between decapitalizing super mutant and super mutant brute. Ausir(talk) 18:02, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
Typo. Regarding specific creature types, I was merely stating how it's handled on other wikis and that I find "super mutant overlord" to be weird-looking, mostly because I've never seen it decapitalized anywhere (other than in completely caps-averse forum posts). -- Porter21 (talk) 19:01, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
Location names also have to be considered: "Talon Company camp" vs "Talon Company camp". I'd prefer the capitalized version to differentiate the specific camp in question from the generic "(a) Talon Company camp". -- Porter21 (talk) 23:19, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
If they are article titles, then yes they should absolutely be capitalized; even this page should be 'Capitalization Guidelines' with an uppercase 'G'. Killzig 16:51, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
Not really, see e.g. Wikipedia article titles. Ausir(talk) 02:07, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

From Kingclyde's talk page

Moved here, since it's the relevant place for this discussion. Ausir(talk) 11:49, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Words like "raiders" should not be capitalized when used alone, since it's not a name of a specific faction, but a generic name for various bands, same with "tribals". On the other hand, Pitt raiders or Point Lookout tribals can be capitalized, since they refer to specific factions. See also the discussion at Forum:Capitalization guidelines. Ausir(talk) 11:19, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
The example I was thinking of was on The raid shack in the first sentence. Raiders in general are considered a faction. Mainly in the GECK and in-game. Pitt raiders are no different than regular raiders, so why are they capitalized. We can't have it both ways. In-game the tribals in PL don't have Point Lookout Tribals as a name where Pitt Raiders do. All three are factions. Raiders should be capitalized in instances like the first line of that article. It is stating who the place is occupied by. It is occupied by Raiders. I think both of the following make sense and are proper grammar. 1) The Raid Shack is occupied by Raiders. 2) Bethesda Offices West is home to a considerable number of raiders. Both are proper uses of grammar. --Kingclyde 11:28, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
Raiders in Capital Wasteland are not one, organized faction like the Pitt raiders or the Khans. It's just a common word for various bands like these. It is occupied by raiders, just like it would be by bandits, rogues, doctors or accountants. Ausir(talk) 11:32, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
If they weren't one faction, why does the GECK and in-game list them like that. It shows the Pitt Raiders as DLCPittRaiderFaction and regular raiders as RaiderFaction. Either way it seems I cannot get results here. Every arguement I make is muted by bad grammar. I'm done. I need some sleep. --Kingclyde 11:39, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
They might be one faction according to the GECK, but it doesn't really mean anything. It's just an abstraction for gameplay purposes, which sometimes treats unrelated individuals as one faction and sometimes treats parts of one faction as separate. "Raider" as such is a generic word, not a proper one, and in Fallout 3 the raiders are unorganized bands, not one big faction. Ausir(talk) 11:44, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I'd not capitalize "raiders" (nor would I capitalize "bandits" etc). Kingclyde is right that they are a faction in the technical and general sense, but to me the word is no more specific than e.g. "wastelander". -- Porter21 (talk) 12:14, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


Seems like this discussion has slept away and isn't going anywhere. Any chance someone could try to turn the results of this discussion into a set of rules which can either be applied or further discussed? -- Porter21 (talk) 19:44, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Bump. A few recent edits moving "Vault 87 super mutant" to "Vault 87 Super Mutant" brought this discussion to mind again.
To summarize the above discussion:
  • Words in article titles should be capitalized according to the same rules for capitalization within prose.
  • Proper names, like Super Mutant Brute, should be capitalized, while the more generic "super mutant" should remain uncapitalized.
  • The first word in an article title should be capitalized no matter what.
Some observations from me to further the discussion:
  • Usage remains inconsistent across the wiki. Weight-Value Ratio is all capitalized, while Mirrored shades is not.
  • Usage within prose remains inconsistent. "Super mutant" appears capitalized, uncapitalized and even mixed.
  • I suggest that it would be simpler to capitalize all words in article titles, according to basic newspaper headline usage: Initial word capitalized, all others capitalized except articles (the, an, a).
  • I would also suggest that it would be fine to capitalize items' and creatures' in-game names within article prose. So, "Mirrored Shades" and "Super Mutant," "Giant Ant," etc.
My suggestions come mainly from the direction of easy to explain, easy to teach, easy to implement. I fully understand the reasoning behind wanting to capitalize Super Mutant Brute but not capitalize super mutant. But I can't see the difference being easy to communicate to editors.--Gothemasticator 04:43, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that this is a very difficult area on which an all-encompassing consensus can be met, it would seem reasonable that links match the article name, and as article names are always (at a minimum) first word capitalized, so links (at a minimum) should realistically follow suit. Also matching in-game naming conventions does seem sensible (although we have similar debates along the lines of Sticky vs Sticky Hands for example). Beyond that (aside from proper names), it becomes contextual to a large degree, based on whether reference is based on object or class ie Leo is a Super Mutant vs The NPC will encounter many super mutants. Definitely some attempt to encourage consistency is worthwhile! :)   phoenix  txt  Mini-FO3 Logo2.png 06:28, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
Just to mention it: While article names always have their first letter capitalized, the first letter of wiki links is case-insensitive. For example, Super mutant points to the same page as super mutant without needing a redirect. If anything, the link auto-complete is the only issue here. -- Porter21 (talk) 21:46, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, in-game usage also differs depending on what game we're talking about (FO1 and 2 vs. FO3). As for basic newspaper headline usage, it also differs between newspapers - compare e.g. [1] to [2]. And I'd prefer to follow basic wiki usage (as in, Wikipedia usage, since it's the biggest wiki around), where only proper words are capitalized. We're a wiki, not a newspaper.

As for links matching article names, I don't think it should always necessarily be the case, although I think this guideline should encompass both links and article titles. And even if article titles remain capitalized, I think links within normal text should remain uncapitalized. Writing like "Giant Ant was attacked by a Raider with a Rocket Launcher" hurts my eyes. Ausir(talk) 15:40, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

OK, so if we compare that to "Tyrannosaurus Rex was attacked by a Marine with a Colt Peacemaker", how do we define the rationale for differentiation? Do you feel that the terminology used in-game is too "generic", even though they hold the same specific descriptive focus? (hope that isn't too hard on your eyes) :)   phoenix  txt  Mini-FO3 Logo2.png 07:59, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
It should be Tyrannosaurus rex, not Rex. In Latin names of the species, the first word is always capitalized, the second one isn't. However, giant ant is not a Latin name, it's an English name, just like e.g. green-head ant. In English, species names are not capitalized. Colt Peacemaker is a proper name, just like e.g. Winchester P94, but not just "plasma rifle". Marine is capitalized in English as well, as a proper name for a member of a specific organization, the Marine Corps. While in case of raiders, some raider groups have proper names, but raiders as such aren't one. Ausir(talk) 17:46, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
I think the capitalization conventions should be the same for article titles and article text. If they aren't, linking to articles becomes cumbersome or requires quite a number of redirects. I also share Ausir's point of view regarding capitalization; reading "Giant Ant was attacked by a Raider with a Rocket Launcher" makes my eyes bleed, too. -- Porter21 (talk) 21:46, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
Well, while simplicity appeals to me, eyes bleeding is no good. Are we agreed on what I wrote in the summary box above, then?--Gothemasticator 06:47, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
Well, first word is always displayed as capitalized, but it's not case sensitive - that is, whether you type in ghoul or Ghoul gets you to the same place without any redirects. Ausir(talk) 10:13, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
The T-rex was a quick example (just to gauge position) that I thought would have more familiarity than Poll Dorset or Holstein Friesian - Red Deer is probably a better example. Clearly you perceive the language used in-game to be common-generic, have an expectation of formatting based on that usage, and that the descriptive terms used in-game don't hold the same value as the name of a breed, group, type, make, specified designator etc which are generally capitalized. Perspective noted and understood. :)   phoenix  txt  Mini-FO3 Logo2.png 09:01, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't call Red Deer a good example - looks like overcapitalization on the part of Wikipedia people who edited the article in question. Other sources, e.g. BBC just use "red deer". Ausir(talk) 10:57, May 17, 2010 (UTC)


  • Words in article titles should be capitalized according to the same rules for capitalization within prose.
  • Proper names, like "Super Mutant Brute", should be capitalized, while the more generic "super mutant" should remain uncapitalized.
  • The exception is quest titles, in which we follow in-game capitalization, as haphazard as it is.

What do y'all think?--Gothemasticator 17:34, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. We'd still need to settle on article name capitalization though. -- Porter21 (talk) 18:00, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
I'm for non-capitalized article names, unless it's a proper name, of course, and with redirects from capitalized ones. Ausir(talk) 00:32, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
I agree, it seems to be the solution which is most consistent with our handling of section headlines, corresponds to Wikipedia practice and is least problematic in combination with the link auto-complete. -- Porter21 (talk) 07:43, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
New users creating articles likely won't care, but it's not as if their spelling is consistent now, and we already create redirects from non-capitalized spellings anyway, which is not any less work than moving a newly created page. Ausir(talk) 08:08, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, a third of the FO3 articles were created with capitalized names, a third with non-capitalized ones and a third with completely wrong spelling :P -- Porter21 (talk) 08:22, May 27, 2010 (UTC)


Should I change the Naming section at The Vault:Content organization guideline from:

  • Names which do not relate to ingame subjects should not be overcapitalized. They should be "Fallout series" and "Fallout setting", not "Fallout Series" and "Fallout Setting".

To something like this:

  • Article names and links should not be overcapitalized, regardless of whether they relate to in-game subjects or not, and regardless of in-game spelling. For example, we use "Fallout series" and "Fallout setting", not "Fallout Series" and "Fallout Setting". Proper names, such as Pancor Jackhammer should be capitalized, but common words, like combat shotgun, should not.
  • If the spelling used on the wiki is different from the in-game spelling, a redirect from the in-game spelling should be created.

? Ausir(talk) 07:11, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. There's also a bit about capitalization in article text in FW:EDIT#Capitalizing which needs updating, too (can probably just use the first list item). -- Porter21 (talk) 07:16, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
I have one suggestion: use "super mutant" and "raiders" as your examples. Other than that, I think it looks great.--Gothemasticator 07:41, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting hung up on the "regardless of ingame spelling" bit, especially for article names. Aren't people going to search for and expect ingame spellings? I can understand not capitalizing the names in article content, but in the names seems at bit much, what with Sturdy caravan shotgun, where the weapon is titled "Caravan shotgun", with the capital 'C'. (It's even spelled "Caravan Shotgun" in the article, case in point. :P)Nitty Tok. 16:44, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
The weapon is called caravan shotgun, it's just that article title's first letters are not case-sensitive, and the first letter is always capitalized, just like at Wikipedia. And so the sturdy caravan shotgun is also called that. Anyway, whathever people are going to search for, they're going to find it, since there will be redirects from the capitalized names. Ausir(talk) 17:07, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
But people will be making the capitalized names, because that's what they see and has been used for all of the previous games, with very few oddities. How can we blatantly ignore ingame spelling? This isn't Wikipedia, remember, it's the "Gamer's guide" to the Fallout games. And "Caravan" is a proper name, isn't it? The shotgun is specifically named "Caravan" shotgun, as opposed to "double-barrel shotgun", which is what it is. Nitty Tok. 17:10, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it a proper name. Just a name of a shotgun used by caravans. And as Porter said, regardless of which spelling we consider official, half the people will still make incorrectly named articles. Anyway, why didn't you discuss it durign the many months this thread was active instead of after we came to a consensus? As for being the "gamer's guide", most gamers don't really give a damn how the article is named, as long as it has the info they need. Ausir(talk) 17:40, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, but I still don't see why we shouldn't have the name capitalized in the title. An article like 5.56mm round looks very good (even though it should be moved to 5.56mm (Fallout 3) anyway), with the article name capitalized, but the word 'round' isn't capitalized throughout the content. Something like 20 gauge shotgun shell doesn't look very proper as an article title, especially in the ammo navbox. I'm fine with not capitalizing the names in articles, but the title of the article is making me uncomfortable.
And I'm bitching now because it's only being put into effect now, and therefore making me irritated now. And the title thing is still being discussed, isn't it? It looks like it from the above. Nitty Tok. 17:53, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it's already been discussed, decided upon and put on our guidelines page. As an admin, it would be a good idea to look at the wiki discussion forum from time to time. And for me, 5.56mm round looks better as article title than 5.56mm round. Anyway, I personally care mostly about article text, I would prefer the titles not to be capitalized either, but either way is okay. Ausir(talk) 18:10, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
And where on here does it say that it's been decided upon? Ugh. How many of the articles that we already have need to be renamed? How many redirects need to be created? How much of a mess would it be, with overview pages like Grenade, where every link there needs to be separately redirected? The work load is phenominal, especially when we've got Vegas right around the corner. It's lunacy at this point. Nitty Tok. 18:15, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
It was decided upon above, when a guideline was proposed and no one objected. Ausir(talk) 18:24, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, forget it. Nitty Tok. 18:25, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, I'm not insistent on the article titles, as long as the names are not capitalized in article text. Ausir(talk) 18:24, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
Then why'd you sic Shadowrunner on the pre-order stuff? Nitty Tok. 18:30, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
Because that's the version we agreed on after months of discussion. Ausir(talk) 18:31, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
Then why'd you just say you aren't insistant on that?! Nitty Tok. 18:32, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
I said I'm not insistant of that being the policy. But given that it's been decided, I'm fine with it. If you want to discuss changing the policy back to keeping capitalized article names but not capitalizing the rest, I'm fine with it too. Ausir(talk) 18:47, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
Nah, I think I'm done with arguing. Nitty Tok. 18:48, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

I think the article name should be capitalized in the title, but not in the article. It looks ridiculous otherwise. Spoon Say Hi! 17:00, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, creating a mismatch between article title and in-article usage just results in additional work for little gain. For example, every time you'd want to create a link to "super mutant", you'd have to type "[[Super Mutant|super mutant]]" instead of simply "[[super mutant]]"; even if you'd like to rely on redirects, you'd still have to correct the link-autocomplete output from "[[Super Mutant]]" to "[[super mutant]]" instead of merely correcting the first letter.
On a side note, I do agree with Ausir that it's a somewhat annoying habit to ignore the discussions but then complain when they're essentially over. The discussion was running for 4 months, there was plenty of time to leave your opinion. -- Porter21 (talk) 06:50, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
Like I told Ausir, I didn't see enough of a problem with it to complain while it was in the drawing board. Now that it's being used for the add-on packs, it's got my nitpicker senses going off. Nitty Tok. 12:46, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
Won't the autocomplete suggest [[Super mutant]] where it should be [[super mutant]] anyway, so it will still need to be corrected? Ausir(talk) 14:13, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but like I said, if the article is named "super mutant" you only need to correct the first letter and then have the link point to the article proper; if it's named "Super Mutant" you have to correct at least two letters and still have it point to a redirect, or use a piped link to get it to point to the article directly - which is even more to type. -- Porter21 (talk) 14:21, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but I'd say that the effort of correcting one letter and two letters is pretty similar, while the effort required to move all existing pages to new names will be huge if we choose the non-capitalized version (which I still slightly prefer, just saying that they both have disadvantages). Ausir(talk) 14:29, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'd rather have links point directly to the article rather than to redirects, otherwise we get a ton of double redirects each time a page is moved. Plus moving the pages is a one-time effort, whereas the increased typing and maintenance effort would remain forever. It's not like moving the pages causes a lot of work other than the move itself (which is a 3-second-job); bots can fix up the double redirects and even the links if we keep a list somewhere. -- Porter21 (talk) 14:35, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
True, although in case of conflicting opinions over what is a proper name and what isn't (for me, for example, ghoul mask isn't, while it is for others, it seems) will lead to pages being moved back and forth, which is for me a bit more messy than being edited and reedited. Playing the devil's advocate here a bit, as I'd prefer them to be non-capitalized as the end result, but I'm not sure if it's worth the extra effort, at least for now. At least for me it seems that having inconsistent article names for some time will be more jarring than having inconsistent in-article spelling, which we already have anyway. Ausir(talk) 14:43, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
Well, if an article is being moved back and forth frequently, we can simply apply move protection, reach a consensus on the talk page and then leave it there. Regarding whether it's worth the effort right now, well, the required effort only increases the more the wiki grows. -- Porter21 (talk) 15:07, June 11, 2010 (UTC)


Poll finished on 12:13 am June 17, 2010 (UTC).
Icon vote.png
  • A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
  • You can vote by placing the following line in the appropriate section of the option you support:
    • # {{yes}} ~~~
  • Please do not edit other people's votes.

OK, let's have a poll regarding capitalization of article titles, since there's still no consensus in this regard.

Capitalized names (like Assault rifle) are more consistent with the in-game usage (although this varies from game to game or even within games themselves to an extent), and will require fewer changes to existing articles. However, this means that many links to articles will have to be links to redirects or piped links.

Non-capitalized names (like assault rifle) are consistent with the guidelines we agreed on for article text and will require less redirect or piped links once the new guidelines are fully in place. However, they require more massive changes to current articles and are for the most part not consistent with in-game names (although we're an encyclopedia, not a game, so it can be argued we are not bound by in-game usage - the Wikipedia usage, for example, is "assault rifle"). Proper names will, of course, remain capitalized.

Keep in mind that this poll has no effect on guidelines regarding capitalization of names and article links in text within articles.

This still brings up the point that most of the Vault needs to be told about things on the banner at the top. Nitty Tok. 20:00, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
Which is somewhat sad indeed. -- Porter21 (talk) 08:24, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe a sort of news listing like we do for the actual news on the main page would be helpful in getting people to look at these. :P Nitty Tok. 17:27, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
Well, I could add a display of the most recent forum threads in the "wiki discussion" forum to My Home and the community portal if you think that'd help. I don't think most of our regulars use the main page very often (at least I don't), so I'm not sure how much use a listing there would be. Alternatively (or additionally), we could somehow integrate that thread listing into the "Helping out" box; this way, it'd show up on every portal page. -- Porter21 (talk) 22:32, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
It was mentioned in the Vault digest months ago. Ausir(talk) 22:33, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. Just trying to figure out ways to increase general awareness of forum discussions without having to change the site notice all the time or relying on the digests. However, that's maybe a bit outside of this thread's scope and would probably better be discussed in an own topic. -- Porter21 (talk) 22:37, June 17, 2010 (UTC)



Poll is over - let's talk consensus

Non capitalised has won (hooray!), so please help out in the capitalisation project. Thankyou. Tezzla blah blah blah 15:08, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

A vote (especially a close one) is not the same thing as reaching a consensus. I'd like to hear from the folks who voted for Capitized before we declare this over. I'll put a notice on their talk pages.--Gothemasticator 16:10, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't think we'll ever reach a 100% consensus anyway. On some issues, vote is as close as it gets. I would have personally accepted the other choice if it was something that most of the users who care about policies enough to vote wanted. Ausir(talk) 16:17, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
Ausir's right. I still think that the capitalization looks a little wonky, but I'm more concerned about odd words like Multiplas or Shocksword, and the discussions, moves, and locks (as Porter suggested) that they're going to create. Nitty Tok. 16:23, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting opening the whole thing up again for debate. It's just been a bit more of a contentious topic than most, and we're all going to have to live with the new policy. So, I think it's the decent thing to do to give the minority a chance to react to the poll. And, thanks, Nitty, for being gracious.--Gothemasticator 16:37, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, fine. But I'm not helping rename every single page and make the re-directs for articles that aren't consistent to in-game spelling. Cheers. Spoon Say Hi! 21:37, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

So, have we won? Should we start the project? Tezzla blah blah blah 14:17, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
Due to the lack of a reply, i'll take that as a yes. Tezzla blah blah blah 19:25, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

You can hardly deduct anything from a lack of replies within 5 hours, especially on the weekend. And by the way, please stop it with the "winning" and "we/they" crap - this isn't about winning and it's certainly not about creating some sort of rift within the community, this is about finding the best possible solution for the wiki. -- Porter21 (talk) 07:50, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

To contribute to the topic, I appreciate it may be weird for people to not have the article titles capitalized; for native speakers maybe more than others. Personally, I think consistency is more important. We do not capitalize headlines in articles, and we do not capitalize article titles like Fallout 3 weapons. Unless we start capitalizing those as well, whatever scheme we decide on is an inconsistent mish-mash in my opinion. Sure, we could go about mitigating the "weirdness" by using {{DISPLAYTITLE:}} extensively, but it'd still be a mish-mash. -- Porter21 (talk) 11:54, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
What would the Displaytitle template do, exactly? Nitty Tok. 12:15, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
DISPLAYTITLE isn't a template really, it's a magic word (like e.g. {{PAGENAME}}). Basically, you can use it to modify the article title (i.e. the main headline at the very top when looking at the page) without modifying the page's name itself. By default it can only be used to alter the capitalization. For example, if the article is named "Example article" you can use the magic word to change the displayed title to "Example Article" or "exAmple articlE", but not to "Example article 123". The only page currently using it is id Software, where it makes the "i" lower case in the article's main title. -- Porter21 (talk) 15:46, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
And how would I/we go about using that? Would we just add it to pages, or do something using the custom Monaco CSS thing? Nitty Tok. 13:31, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
It needs to be added to each page; it's not something you can add via CSS, at least not in this form (you can actually transform the article titles to uppercase via CSS, but that'd affect pages where we don't want it as well). It could probably also be included in a widely used template like {{Infobox}} so the formatting would be done automatically. However, the displayed title being different from the page name is likely to be confusing for a significant number of people. -- Porter21 (talk) 11:56, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

I think those who voted no have had a decent enough time period to have their say. I'm not going to hold anything up any further. Not that I think anyone's been waiting on me :P - just mentioning it since I was the one pushing for waiting a bit for decency's sake. As far as I'm concerned, the anti-capitalization project can proceed.--Gothemasticator 07:40, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

This makes me uncappy. Nukey (talk) 16:15, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.