User talk:Eyer

Guild of Copy Editors December 2025 Newsletter Hello, and welcome to the December newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since September. If you'd like to be notified of upcoming drives and blitzes, and other GOCE activities, the best method is to add our announcements box to your watchlist. Election news: The Guild's coordinators play an important role in the WikiProject, making sure nearly everything runs smoothly and on time. Editors experienced in drives or blitzes and in good standing (unblocked and without sanctions) are invited to nominate themselves or another editor (with their permission, of course) to be a Guild coordinator until 23:59 on 15 December (UTC). The voting phase begins at 00:01 on 16 December and runs until 23:59 on 31 December. Questions may be asked of candidates at any stage in the process. Elected coordinators will serve a six-month term from 1 January through 30 June 2026. September Drive: 43 of the 63 editors who signed up for the September Backlog Elimination Drive edited 693,541 words in 265 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. October Blitz: 14 of the 15 editors who signed up for the October Copy Editing Blitz edited 75,108 words in 31 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. November Drive: 38 of the 65 editors who signed up for the November Backlog Elimination Drive edited 590,816 words in 240 articles. Barnstars awarded are posted here. December Blitz: The December Blitz will begin at 00:00 on 14 December (UTC) and will end on 20 December at 23:59. Sign up here. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 01:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC), GOCE copy editors have completed 293 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 1,730 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Dhtwiki, GoldRomean, Miniapolis and Mox Eden. To stop receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I added a link to a documentary where Joe Walsh has a major segment, interviewed in depth. It belongs as an external link in my opinion. I hope this link can be restored. ~2026-21103-8 (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-21103-8 Is this documentary considered a reliable, secondary source? —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 17:20, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Eyer,

Thanks for your recent copyedits to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission article, including the ones noting "caps" and MOS:INSTITUTIONS.

I noticed these changes involve lowercasing "Commission" and "Agency" when they are used as shorthand for the SEC (e.g., changing "the Commission" to "the commission").

In standard English—especially in official U.S. government and legal writing—"Commission" is frequently capitalized in this context because it functions as a proper-noun substitute for the full agency name (similar to how "the Court" is capitalized when referring to the Supreme Court, or "the Department" for a specific department). The SEC's own website and filings consistently capitalize "the Commission" this way.

Could you explain the reason for lowercasing here? Does Wikipedia's MOS:CAPS or MOS:INSTITUTIONS guidance take precedence over this external convention, even when the agency itself uses capitalization?

I'm asking in good faith to better understand the styling choice. Thanks again for your contributions! AquilaVeritas (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. It's my understanding that, yes, "commission" is a common noun. Per MOS:INSTITUTIONS, common nouns aren't capitalized even when they serve as a stand-in for a proper name. I hope that this helps. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 19:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again, Eyer, for the explanation and the link to [[MOS:INSTITUTIONS]]. The general rule against capitalizing common nouns as stand-ins is clear.

I'd like to suggest this may merit an exception here, based directly on Wikipedia precedents with comparable U.S. agencies and [[MOS:CAPS]] guidance on source-driven styling.

• Strongest precedent: the Federal Reserve. In the [[Federal Reserve]] article (and related pages like [[Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System]]), "the Board" is consistently capitalized when used as shorthand for the Board of Governors—an independent federal entity very similar to the SEC in structure and function. This treats "Board" as a proper-noun equivalent, reflecting predominant usage in reliable sources.
• Similar regulatory commissions: The [[Federal Communications Commission]] article frequently capitalizes "the Commission" in formal and policy contexts (e.g., "the Commission voted unanimously," "chief legal adviser to the Commission"). The [[Federal Trade Commission]] page also shows capitalized uses alongside some lowercase, but formal references lean toward "Commission."
• Source-based usage per [[MOS:CAPS]]: The guideline allows capitalization when a term is treated as a specific proper-noun substitute in a substantial majority of independent reliable sources. SEC.gov, federal regulations, and Supreme Court opinions overwhelmingly use "the Commission" (capital C) as the standard metonym—far more consistently than generic news sources lowercase it.

Like "the Court" (capitalized per [[MOS:SCOTUS]]) or "the Board," "the Commission" functions as a formal proper reference for an independent U.S. regulatory body. Lowercasing it creates slight inconsistency with these close analogs.

Not insisting—just proposing for consistency across similar agencies. Thoughts from others? ~~~~ AquilaVeritas (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

In particular, on the Judiciary Act of 1869 page, your most recent edit to the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judiciary_Act_of_1869&diff=1336871730&oldid=1336871599) reverted my immediately previous edit in trying to reduce capitalization. I don't think that was warranted because I believe my contribution to the page was genuinely valuable. Could you explain why you reverted the stuff I did so I can learn how to be better in the future, assuming it was purposeful? LieutenantZipp (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @LieutenantZipp: I didn't intentionally revert any of your changes. I didn't use the rollback or undo functions... and I wasn't notified of any edit conflicts when I published my changes. I'm not sure what might have happened. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 16:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha. I apologize if I came off as at all confrontational—I'm just not used to having my edits in any sense reverted and was therefore confused. LieutenantZipp (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

No worries at all. Happy editing! —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 16:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)