Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters

Add new items at top of list; move to Concluded when decided, and summarize the conclusion. Comment at them if interested. Please keep this section at the top of the page.

There is no single universal rule for capitalizing "black" and "white" when relation to people, although this is more common in some American style guides. It can be nuanced, for example according to The Guardian, Minna Salami, who is a Finnish Nigerian, dislikes capitalizing "black" when reference to people because she opposes the imposition of any single rule regarding how black people should define themselves. In South Africa, the term "colored" should not be capitalized, according to the South African Editorial Style Guide by the government in South Africa. (https://www.gcis.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/resourcecentre/guidelines/Editorial_Style_Guide.pdf). The Oxford dictionary stated that the capitalization of these terms are a stylistic choice, rather than a strict rule. The term "African American" should not be hyphenated. MarcoToa1 (talk) 09:43, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Capitalizing "white" is optional, since it hasn't developed a widespread, accepted cultural identity and community to the same extent. Some also capitalized "white" and "black" like the APA style. MarcoToa1 (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It's best to ask the writer or author's preference about the capitalization. MarcoToa1 (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

You can compare:

Black people, black people, White people, white people, Coloured people, coloured people

in Ngram and must be case sensitive. MarcoToa1 (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

You can also compare other style guides. MarcoToa1 (talk) 09:50, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It should be "compare with". MarcoToa1 (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

This is covered in MOS:RACECAPS. Gawaon (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. MarcoToa1 (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

There has been a discussion at Talk:Reverse racism discussing this with more examples of style guides listed. The Associated Press capitalizes black but not white, whereas the Chicago Manual of Style capitalizes both. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, and both these styles are allowed by MOS:RACECAPS. Personally I capitalize "Black", but not "white", unless local consensus requires something else. Gawaon (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I think we should capitalize both or capitalize neither. Otherwise it does not seem logically consistent. White supremacy is a cultural concept just as much if not more than the cultural concept of Black Americans. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The idea is that Black people in America are a specific, "tangible" group (like Native Americans). Of course there are plenty of black people across the globe who are not part of this circumscribed group. There are also questions like, if you are a 21st-century African immigrant to the US, are you now part of this group without actually sharing its history? Do you "graduate" from being black to being Black? Can you decide? Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is discussed in the AP style guide stories, but I do not find it logical. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

To speak to your example, Barack Obama is Black. Asian Indians who have darker skin than he does are called brown, and Chinese people who have lighter skin than French people are not called white. This suggests the adjectives are proper adjectives which should be capitalized. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

It currently says "John Doe is a Marine" is incorrect. That's not how I see it or how United States Marine Corps handles it. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

You are correct. That is not how the US Department of Defense handles it. You will note that on .mil websites typically soldier, airman, etc. are also capitalized. Wikipedia's guidance for the capitalization of job titles which are not referring to a specific person is to use lower case. In the same way a university might capitalize professor or a company might capitalize customer. They are capitalizing for importance. This has been discussed many times and we have continued to refer to a marine in lower case. I look at the usage; if I would substitute soldier for marine, it would be lower case, but if I would substitute Army for Marine, it would be upper case. SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

"Soldier", "professor" and "customer" are generic terms, while "Marine" is a member of a particular unit. The Department of Defense (p. 8) specifies that it should be capitalized, as do the Washington Post, Time magazine, the New York Times (now), the Marine Corps University Press house style guide (p. 7), etc. etc. (This applies only to US Marines; foreign marines are not capitalized.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Nope. Let's not treat people differently based on which country they're from. That would be an NPOV violation. Gawaon (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

It is not an NPOV violation, any more than "humor" vs "humour" is. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, this is pretty standard in Marine articles: [random sample of articles] Chesty Puller, James Burnes (Medal of Honor), Hugh Brannum, Howard Major Buckley, Daniel D. Bruce, etc., so this is flying in the face of a strong consensus. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Not quite… those articles consistently capitalize “Marine Corps” as an entity (just as we would capitalize “Army” or “Navy”)… they don’t capitalize the use of “marine” as a job title. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

What articles are you reading? "Puller is the most decorated Marine in American history." "He [Burnes] was serving in Tientsin, China, on June 20, 1900, and along with three other Marines crossed a river in a small boat under heavy enemy fire ..." "Brannum met fellow Marine Bob Keeshan" (Mr. Green Jeans AND Captain Kangaroo!) "He [Buckley] was one of three Marines ..." "This action [by Bruce] saved the lives of three other Marines." Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Be that is it may, if some articles don't adhere to the MOS, it only shows that they don't adhere to the consensus documented in the MOS, not that there's consensus against the MOS. The proper course of action is to fix the articles to bring them in agreement with the established consensus. Gawaon (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Both Wikipedia's manual of style and the Chicago Manual of Style (used for many academic purposes) set "marine" in lowercase. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 00:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Long story short. Nobody outside the DOD cares about how they do things. We treat marine just like any other word in the English language. If you find usages of Marine, please let us know so that we can fix them. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike, Gawaon, and Blueboar: Let's attack this from another perspective. American articles use American spelling. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Capitalization is not a change in spelling. “m” and “M” are the same letter of the alphabet. Blueboar (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Who said anything about a "change"? Capitalization is how American English handles it. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster is arguably the standard of dictionaries of American English. In Merriam-Webster, “marine” is listed as a common noun (uncapitalized). —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 00:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

In the Scientology article an editor has recently edited it so that the "the Church" is sometimes used as an abbreviated form for the Church of Scientology. The editor also added a note justifying this on the grounds that this is an abbreviated name that it uses. (A similar argument is also often made to justify "the Church" instead of "the church" in Catholic Church-related articles.) There are two MOS questions here: 1. Is this capitalization unjustified according to the principles of MOS:INSTITUTION? or 2. Is the capitalization justified (according to the same section) on the grounds of it being a consistently capitalized shortened name of a specific institution? Your thoughts please. Thanks, Afterwriting (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I think such capitalization is useful and widely used in both cases. It's helpful as shortened form of the full name, and avoids any risk of confusion with "the church" as a reference to some previously mentioned building. MOS:INSTITUTION would presumably argue for lowercase, however. Gawaon (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

In any case, a note on this seems overkill. Decide to a form and stick to it; there's no need to apologize or explain. Gawaon (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Unjustified capitalization. No reason this should be an exception to MOS:INSTITUTION. As far as I know, Scientology does not have buildings that it calls churches, so there's no possibility of confusion with a particular building in this context. Deor (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I'll edit it accordingly asap. Afterwriting (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I propose the following change to the first sentence of MOS:MOVEMENT:

This would clarify that our approach to "movements" (doctrines, ideologies, philosophies, etc. …) is essentially the same as it is to other topics. A strong reading of the current wording could suggest that we only capitalize "movements" like Calvinism, where the name derives from the proper name John Calvin, but do not capitalize New Age movement, Never Trump movement ("Never" also capitalized in running text), Arts and Crafts movement, MeToo movement, New Culture Movement, Indian Home Rule movement, Irish Home Rule movement, New Citizens' Movement, etc. regardless of usage in reliable sources. I believe this strong reading is incorrect. It would be at odds with actual practice and with our standards in every other subject area. It is also somewhat contradictory to the later guidance which tells us to follow usage in sources to determine when to capitalize words like draconian and platonic. I view this as a simple clarification rather than a change to the guidance, but this came up recently at Talk:Ham and Eggs movement#Requested move 9 April 2026 so I am raising this here rather than boldly changing the wording. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support always capitalizing proper names. Not sure why anyone would object to this, it seems like a mere oversight in the guidance. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Question: What does "or derives one" mean? Can you explain and give an example? Gawaon (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  Oops, that should be derives from one. I have corrected it. Calvinism is derived from the proper name Calvin. In the example given in the MOS, the decision to capitalize republican would depend on whether the usage refers to republicanism or a specific Republican Party. I'm not sure where the derives from language originally came from. I'm not married to it. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support with different wording for guideline: unless the name is a proper name, or derives from one. The remainder of your proposed addition is unnecessary because CAPS defines proper noun as a word that is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of reliable secondary sources. Wallnot (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  I've corrected my proposal to derives from one. I prefer to maintain the rest of the proposal, though I acknowledge it is redundant. We repeat usually capitalized and consistently capitalized in multiple subsections of MOSCAPS. Since editors often reference subject-specific usage guidance in content and article title determinations, some repetition is helpful. I called out independent here since a lot of writing on "movements" comes from adherents or proponents and other sources that may be prone to over-capitalization. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  Independent is not a term of art used elsewhere in the guideline so I oppose its inclusion here. The addition should refer to reliable secondary sources, which would not include primary sources written by adherents or opponents. Wallnot (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  Huh?! "Independent" appears multiple times in this guideline. Its first appearance is in the lead (emphasis included in the original):

  Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.

  At MOS:CAPSACRS:

  for any given example, use the spelling found in the majority of reliable, independent sources

  At MOS:PERSONAL:

  As proper nouns, these names are almost always first-letter capitalized. An exception is made when the lowercase variant has received regular and established use in reliable independent sources.

  At MOS:SPORTCAPS:

  Specific competition titles and events (or series thereof) are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in independent sources

  The explanatory note [j] within MOS:SPORTCAPS/GAMECAPS references and directly quotes consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources from the lead section of the guideline.

  At MOS:TMCAPS:

  For trademarks that are given in mixed or non-capitalization by their owners (such as adidas), follow the formatting and capitalization used by independent reliable sources.

  This term of art is also used throughout Wikipedi's policies and guidelines about reliable sources.—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  Side note: We are inconsistent with our use of commas—independent, reliable vs. independent reliable. Both seem defensible to me but someone may want to take a look at that and make sure we're following our own MOS:COMMA guidance here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I support the edit as amended. Wallnot (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support per Myceteae and Wh1pla5h99. Make a lot of sense with the explanations given. Deviating from what reliable independent sources do would indeed seem rather odd. Gawaon (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Would ask for an exception for 'Civil Rights Movement'. The page used to be named '1954-1968 Civil Rights Movement', uppercased. Then, in a Requested move, it was lumped-together with other pages labeled 'civil rights movement' with dated years, although I'm not even sure if those other events were called civil rights movements or if that was just a made up name for a group of Wikipedia articles. But the 1954-1968 Civil Rights Movement, although 'civil rights movement' is not uppercased in the n-grams, is a proper name because the chain of related events can be shown to be organized, connected, strategized, and run by the same individuals (Dr. King, James Bevel, etc.). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  No need for an exception if its lowercase in RS. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  All guidelines call for commonsense exceptions. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  I mean that preserving lowercase there would not be an exception as the proposal is to add and is usually capitalized in reliable independent sources; we generally let RS determine what is and isn't a proper name. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  Exceptions to the guidelines means just that, there are occasional exceptions to the stated rules and regs. The structure of the Civil Rights Movement earns the proper name although sources don't differentiate. In any case, just pointing out that what may be discussed and the importance of exceptions in guideline language, not to decide specific future RMs.Randy Kryn (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  I actually think if RS lowercase "the civil rights movement" it is because it has become so ubiquitous as to not require a name; everyone knows which of the many civil rights movements is being referenced. So it isn't generally treated as a proper name even though it could be (and at times is). Like calling WW2 "the war". Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  The way the MOS differentiates between proper nouns and common nouns is by looking to the usage of reliable secondary sources. If civil rights movement is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of such sources, it should be capitalized on Wikipedia; otherwise the MOS calls for it to be LC. Your explanation of why an exception is justified here is essentially an attack on the guideline itself, which does not look to semantics to mark a distinction, just to the sources.

  I deleted my earlier comment because upon checking a couple RS I saw CRM used in LC. My recollection was that it was generally uppercase. I have no real interest in digging into the most common usage but an exception to the guideline for CRM specifically is completely inappropriate. Wallnot (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  The MOS should not make a special exception for the Civil Rights Movement. Case-by-case determinations should be made via RM. The MOS only highlights systematic exceptions, to highlight application of particular considerations. So unless there is consensus to move the page back to Civil Rights Movement and consensus that the decision reflects a set of principles that apply to similar cases, it doesn't make sense for the MOS to address this specific case. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  proper name because the chain of related events can be shown to be organized, connected, strategized, and run by the same individuals is not the way that Wikipedia nor scholars of language determine what is a isn't a proper name Katzrockso (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and made the change. This seems uncontroversial. I think the prior wording was simply incomplete, especially when read in isolation, and was never intended to apply a different standard to "movements". —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2026 (UTC)