Wikipedia talk:Titling in sentence case

from Wikipedia talk:Article titles

From http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles&oldid=550593821

Sentence case came about after we stopped using CamelCase (see Wikipedia:CamelCase and Wikipedia) in 2001. Start with Wikipedia:Article titles (6 November 2001) and Wikipedia:Canonicalization (5 October 2001). — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting... thanks Hex. That explains a lot.

It seems that the choice was originally between using CamelCase ("BlackBear" or "HistoryOfSlavery") and Sentence case ("Black bear" and "History of slavery"). I actually agree with our decision when faced with that choice ("Sentence case" is much better than "CamelCase"). The next question is whether we ever discussed the pros and cons between "Sentence case" and "Title Case"? Blueboar (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, it appears that case itself did not matter. "For instance: naming conventions, naming Conventions, Naming conventions, Naming Conventions ...will all link to the same page (which will be titled titled "Naming Conventions"). One could link to http.../naming_conventions or http.../naming_Conventions, etc." Xkcdreader (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That only works if there are redirects in place. Otherwise case does matter in the links. older ≠ wiser 17:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hence the use of past tense. =P He was quoting the “March 28, 2001 update” in this archived discussion. Apparently, the old software treated wikilinks as case-insensitive. —Frungi (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That's nothing. You should have seen the problems we had before redirects were invented. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

To cut to the point... We originally went with Sentence case due to limitations of the software that existed back in 2001... these limitations in the software limited our options when it came to titles. However, at least some of those original software related reasons why we went with Sentence case formatted titles no longer apply. For example, we now have piped links, which allow us to use different capitalization between the Title of an article and how it appears when linked in article text (and we can link without the need for a redirect)... something we could not do back in 2001. Changes in the software mean that, now, in 2013, we have more options as to how we are able to format our titles (options that we did not have when we created the sentence case "rule"). And given that we now have more options, perhaps it is time to revisit the "rule" and see whether it still has consensus or whether we should modify it. Blueboar (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

As this is a fundamental change, this would need participation on a Wiki-wide scale. I can see no compelling reason to make this change, and I doubt it would garner consensus, but of course, if anyone is willing to make a proposal with a compelling case for the change please ensure that it is made in the correct forum, so that it reaches the widest possible number of interested editors. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course. No one has suggested making such a significant change without good discussion and wide consensus. Indeed, I am not even sure how I would vote if this came up in an RFC... I just wanted to make sure that we all understood the context of why we made the "Sentence case rule" in the first place, and at least consider the idea that this context might no longer be relevant, and the "rule" outdated. Blueboar (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is, but I do think that every rule should have some associated footnote explaining how it came to be. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia still treats lowercase first letters (in links) as upper case right? Theoretically, would there be any consequence, besides loss of labor, to adding "lowercase title" to pages with non proper noun titles, such as "red meat" and "black bear"? Xkcdreader (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• The history of sentence case for Wikipedia titles is interesting to several of us and well worth documenting in an essay. As for changing this styling, I think it would create great confusion and trouble where there is virtually none. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sigh

@Tomatoswoop, I reviewed during the 15 minutes or so I originally spent copyediting the passage. Let's make that clear right now: you seem to ignore the substantial changes I made because I only commented on one issue I found, one which I then changed my mind about. It's not something I want to continue litigating in circles about, so please drop that assumption you made about my intent. Everyone has different communication styles, and this is me trying to grease the wheels. Thanks. Remsense 🌈 论 08:47, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

To make the reasons more explicit (though there's not much there so someone paying attention would be able to get the idea) your poetry at the end is goofy and pointless, for one thing. I'll go on if I need to. Remsense 🌈 论 08:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Remense. Thanks for engaging. I did in fact take the time to compare your changes to the version I left, in detail, before making any changes. Perhaps I did not make that clear. I'm not asking of you something I have not done myself. I compared the final result with my original, and also stepped through each of your revisions for good measure to make sure not to miss anything, and to understand the intent behind each change. And, with respect to intent, please note that I used AGF on my revert – I'm not sure precisely what you're alluding to, but for clarity: I impute no malice. I believe you have most likely made some honest mistakes with some of your recent reverts, sure, but not anything malicious. As for substance, yes, that's what I took issue with. But I don't expect you to take that on faith, I can enumerate if you so desire (but don't want to waste your time if you've already lost interest).

And, more broadly, I do want to clarify that I have absolutely no desire to make this a battle of wills/egos, so if you do feel strongly about the state of the article, then I will clarify my objections specifically, and I hope that we can then both integrate whichever changes to the article as it stands that we feel is best, and come to a consensus, rather than having a spat.

All the best, --Tomatoswoop (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, why not just outline the nitty gritty detail here, since I have a few minutes. On the question of the substantial changes (as you alluded to):

First: Your initial reason for the revert (which you later stepped back on)

I actually agree with this. One of your reversions to my edit on the MOS article (your removal of the words "by default" in particular) I therefore also agree with (although it could have been more charitably and less insultingly phrased), because, as I read further into specifically what "sentence case" implies in this context, and it was indeed redundant to add the qualifying language (which you so helpfully described as wishy-washy, pointless, confusing and redundant. Quite an achievement for two short words!).

My misconception I actually picked up from the original form of this article; as you have seen, this article previously mentioned a specific "exception" to the rule of sentence case for article titles, which the edit summary described as at least one exception to the prohibition against Title Case. I took that at face value, hence my edit to the MOS, which says and should be presented in sentence case, without qualifier. However, since you reverted, before undoing your revert, I took the time to read further. I now believe that in fact, this is not an exception, there is a conception of what sentence case means which can encompass all of those supposed "exceptions". Therefore, the qualifying language (which you removed, then added back in), I believe you were right to remove in the first place, as you did at the MOS.

I will let you make the judgement on whether my assessment is correct there, however, either way, this article and the MOS should agree. But I think your first instinct in this case, both here and there, was correct.

Second: Goofy and pointless

My first edit was so designed to re-instill the spirit of the original user essay, without losing any of the factual refinement added in later revisions (I did highlight this in my edit summary, but, as with so many of your other recent reversions, it seems you didn't take the time to check this, or at least, not to think about it for any time before rolling back).

The original quote simply read:

This decision happened so long ago that no one seems to remember.

It's whimsical. I like it.

However, I wouldn't want to lose any of the factual information that has subsequently added either, so, rather than putting it back exactly as it was, I decide to slightly modify so as to keep the qualities of the original essay, without losing any of the subsequent content or information. This is a matter of taste, of course, and really I'm sure not worth fighting over, but I would like to indicate that (as I specified in my original edit summary, which you seemed to have missed or not paid attention to) it was not just "my" uh, "goofy and pointless" writing - that was how this essay was originally written. And sure, tone/style is a matter of taste, and ultimately not that important - but I think it's fun, and harmless! And. most importantly, I also made sure that this "tone shift" came in the context of an edit that was also an improvement to comprehensibility and utility also, rather than just a stylistic shift to fit the original essay's style.

all your other being fairly minor, I'll address them as a block:

3. removal of links to MOS:ARTICLETITLE and MOS:HEADINGS*
4. changing the term "article title" to "title"
5. the addition of the idea that using sentence case for titles is "natural and intuitive".

 

3. I don't think is an an improvement, these are useful links

   (n.b. especially if you don't revert the destination of the first one again based on a misreading of the edit summary. MOS:AT and MOS:ARTICLETITLE should obviously point to the same place, MOS:ARTICLETITLE pointing to WP's AT, but MOS:AT not doing so makes no sense at all... With that in mind I invite you to either self-revert your last MOS revision, or alternatively to create another internal consistent redirect schema for where the WP and MOS article title redirects should point...)

4. It's not at all clear that in wikipedia jargon that "title" and "heading" refer to two separate things, or that title = article and heading = section, rather than vice versa. Using the term "article title" clarifies this immediately, and that is what the MOS does too (I presume for the same reason). The links do somewhat clarify this situation of course... but you removed those also....
5. simply put, I don't think this is necessarily true. And if it were true, I even might call it wishy washy.... The addition of a subjective claim without any basis I don't think improves the article in general, but moreover, in this case, all evidence suggests to the contrary. Usually titles use Title Case in almost all publications (clue's in the name), and wikipedia is an exception to that. Indeed, one of the most common newbie errors is to put section headings in Title Case rather than sentence case, arguably this article's entire raison d'etre is precisely because it's unintutive.

This may seem unnecessarily detailed, but it felt like it it would be passive aggressive to say "look closer, it's all there in the diffs and efit summaries", so instead, I've enumerated it all explicitly.

Hopefully I have mitigated that by numbering the points, meaning that if you decide to respond, it shouldn't be a lot of effort to do so pointedly and specifically.

All the Best, --Tomatoswoop (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

After twelve years, you two have a sudden intense interest. How long have you known each other? SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

If you have your own sense of how the microessay should be, I defer even more quickly to those, apologies for blowing up your notifications. Remsense 🌈 论 14:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)